United States District Court, D. Arizona
IN RE MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (MERS) LITIGATION
MERS, No. CV 10-01548-PHX-JAT THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Molina MDL No. 09-02119-PHX-JAT
A. TEILBORG SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Parties and Pending Motion
to Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional statement, this member
case has two named Plaintiffs: Edel Molina and Maria E.
Hernandez. (Doc. 2001-1 at 5). There are two Defendants:
MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “MERS” or
“Defendant”). In the pending motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 1981 at 2), Defendant moves for summary
judgment against both Edel Molina and Maria Hernandez. In
responding to this motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel claims
to be responding on behalf of only Maria Hernanadez. Counsel
does not mention Edel Molina. Thus, the Court does not know
if Edel Molina is still a Plaintiff and/or if by failing to
respond, counsel intended to incorporate Maria
Hernandez’s response as Edel Molina’s response,
abandon the claims of Edel Molina, or if this is just an
oversight. To further complicate matters, Plaintiffs’
counsel elected to “consolidate” the response of
the Plaintiff (Milan Stejic) from another member case (CV
10-1547), who is responding to a different motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 1983), into the Hernandez’s response.
The Court has disregarded the portions of the response
directed at that Plaintiff (Stejic) for purposes of this
Summary Judgment Standard
judgment is appropriate when a moving part shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.
R. Civ. Pro. 56. Initially, the movant bears the burden of
pointing out to the Court the basis for the motion and the
elements of the causes of action upon which the non-movant
will be unable to establish a genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
The burden then shifts to the non-movant to establish the
existence of material fact. Id. The non-movant
“must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts” by
“com[ing] forward with ‘specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for
trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(e) (1963) (amended 2010)). A dispute
about a fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The non-movant’s bare
assertions, standing alone, are insufficient to create a
material issue of fact and defeat a motion for summary
judgment. Id. at 247-48.
Count I of the Amended Complaint
the Court of Appeals reversal (In re Mortgage Elec.
Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2014) at
Doc. 1820) of this Court’s dismissal of the
consolidated amended complaint in this case, there is one
Count remaining. The remaining Count is a cause of action
under A.R.S. § 33-420(A). Another Court in this district
has summarized this cause of action as follows:
…A.R.S. § 33-420(A)  penalizes persons claiming
an interest or lien in real property for knowingly recording
a document that is “forged, groundless, contains a
material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise
A. A person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or
encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document
asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the
county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that
the document is forged, groundless, contains a material
misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is
liable to the owner or beneficial title holder of the real
property for the sum of not less than five thousand dollars,
or for treble the actual damages caused by the recording,
whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney fees and costs
of the action.
(Emphasis added.) The broader statutory section, A.R.S.
§ 33-420, is entitled “False documents; liability;
special action; damages; violation; classification.”
David A. Kester v. CitiMortgage, CV 15-365, Doc. 37
(D. Ariz. March 31, 2016).
Fact Specific Claims
Scope of the ...