Foster v. Midfirst Bank

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJune 24, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-00526
StatusUnknown

This text of Foster v. Midfirst Bank (Foster v. Midfirst Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Foster v. Midfirst Bank, (D. Nev. 2022).

Opinion

1 MKrCisCtiAn RAT.H SYc h&u lHerO-HLTinHtUz,S E, LsqL.,P S BN: 7171 2 Matthew P. Pawlowski, Esq., SBN: 9889 9510 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 200 3 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Phone: 702.685.0329 4 Fax: 866.339.5691 Email: DCNV@McCarthyHolthus.com 5 Attorneys for Defendants MidFirst and MERS 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 MARCUS R. FOSTER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00526-CDS-NJK 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs ORDER GRANTING EXPUNGEMENT OF LIS PENDENS (ECF 11) 13 MIDFIRST BANK, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, MORTGAGE 14 ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM (MERS), 15 Defendant(s). 16 17 18 Defendants MidFirst Bank (“MidFirst”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 19 Inc. (erroneously sued as “Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS)”) (“MERS”), by and 20 through their counsel of record, Kristin Schuler-Hintz, Esq. and Matthew P. Pawlowski, Esq., of 21 the law firm and McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, having filed Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in 22 the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, as to Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed March 25, 2022 23 (hereinafter, “Motion”), filed as ECF 7, and having subsequently filed a Supplement to 24 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, as to 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 15), requesting expungement of the lis pendens filed by Plaintiff on 26 April 25, 2022 (ECF 11) and recorded against the real property at issue in this action, identified as 27 420 Groft Way, Henderson, Nevada 89015 (APN No. 179-17-514-030) (“Subject Property”) in 28 the Clark County Recorder’s Office on April 26, 2022 as instrument No. 20220426-0001612. 1 This Honorable Court having set the time and date of hearing on Defendants’ Motion on 2 May 18, 2022 at the hour of 9:30 a.m., having read and reviewed all papers and pleadings on file 3 in this matter and having taken argument of the parties at the time of hearing, and for good cause 4 shown, hereby orders, as follows: 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that at the time of hearing on Defendants’ Motion to 6 Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, as to Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 7 15) on May 18, 2022 at 9:30 a.m., Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed with 9 prejudice, expungement of the lis pendens filed by Plaintiff on April 25, 2022 (ECF 11) and 10 recorded against the Subject Property in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on April 26, 2022 in 11 the official records of Clark County, Nevada as instrument No. 20220426-0001612 is appropriate, 12 pursuant to Wensley v. First Nat. Bank of Nevada, 874 F. Supp. 2d 957, 968 (D. Nev. 2012) 13 (expungement of a lis pendens after dismissing a complaint with prejudice). 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with the dismissal of Plaintiff’s 15 Complaint with prejudice on May 18, 2022, the lis pendens filed by Plaintiff on April 25, 2022 16 (ECF 11) and recorded against the Subject Property in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 17 April 26, 2022 as instrument No. 20220426-0001612 is hereby EXPUNGED and is of no further 18 legal force and effect against the Subject Property. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: _J_u_n_e_ _2_4_, _2_0_2_2____________ 21 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 The submitting party certifies to this Court, pursuant to L.R. 7-2(f) that Plaintiff Marcus R. 25 Foster was served with the proposed order via e-mail on May 19, 2022. Plaintiff Marcus R. 26 Foster did not, within three days of having been served with the Proposed Order, respond to the 27 submitting party either with approval of the Proposed Order or respond and state any reasons for 28 1 disapproval. To date, no approval or disapproval has been received from Marcus R. Foster 2 regarding the form and/or content of this Proposed Order. 3 Respectfully Submitted By: Approved as to form and content: 4 MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP MARCUS R. FOSTER 5 /s/ Kristin A. Schuler-Hintz /s/ NO RESPONSE RECEIVED Kristin A. Schuler-Hintz, Esq. SBN: 7171 Marcus R. Foster 6 Matthew P. Pawlowski, Esq. SBN 9889 420 Groft Way 7 9510 W Sahara Ave., Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89015 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Plaintiff in Proper Person 8 Attorneys for MidFirst and MERS 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pawlowski ee eee SS SS SSE EE SS SS SS RS SS SES □□□ □□□ Matthew Pawlowski Thursday, May 19, 2022 11:48 AM ‘Moerome3@gmail.com' IDSMH NV-22-914217-CV - Foster v. MidFirst Bank and MERS - Order granting expungement of lis pendens for review. Order Granting Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens.pdf

morning, Mr. Foster — the Court’s order and instruction yesterday, attached please find a draft/proposed order expunging the lis pendens the Groft Way property. Please forward any proposed edits or additions for my review. you, P. Pawlowski, Esq.| Associate Attorney NV | Member State Bar of NV Me Garth McCarthy + Holthus, LLP m. 9510 W. Sahara Ave., Ste. 200, Las Vegas, NV 89117 d. 702-685-0329 | Toll Free. 877-369-6122 | c: 702-683-6736 email: MPawlowski@mecarthyholthus.com Ul lis us w. http://www.mecarthyholthus.com Second to None” in: AR | AZ | CA|CcO|ID| NV | NM | OR | TX | WA escalation be required, please contact: Matt Podmenik, Esq. at Khintz@mccarthyholthus.com law requires us to advise you that communication with oul office could be interpreted as an atternpt te collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, [he □□□□□□□□□□□ □□□□□ privlegectsnt protected by tne-attomey/client-and/orother privilege; itis tonfidential in-mature-and-nte mbed-arce bythe □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ intended □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ heres ohibited disscanimation dist ibutiuin, capy or any use whatscaver of thes transmission and its contenls [Pyou receive this lansmissianin dsrot, ploasa eoply er call the sandir and aifange □□□□□ wl be □□□ retrieve the cuiginals fram you at ne charge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wensley v. First National Bank of Nevada
874 F. Supp. 2d 957 (D. Nevada, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Foster v. Midfirst Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-midfirst-bank-nvd-2022.