who has standing – SCA Strong

issuing a vexatious litigant restrictive order ex parte without notice, just cause or an opportunity to oppose (NCJC 2.6(, NCJC 2.9 (improper ex parte communications are prohibited)
denying unopposed motions by differential enforcement of the court rule (EDCR 2.20(e)) that allows a Movant to submit a proposed order for the court to grant an unopposed motion if no party filed a timely written opposition (NCJC 2.2 (apply the law fairly and impartially)
declaring a non-party is a party (NCJC 2.2 (apply the law fairly and impartially) despite all evidence and law to the contrary

Judge Peterson showed bias against me by declaring I was a vexatious litigant in absentia, the rules don’t apply to my opponents, and Red Rock LLC was a party contrary to all law and evidence.

I found out that all this happened two weeks after the ex parte hearing.

Here are the facts and law regarding Red Rock LLC’s lack of standing to be a party.

The court record shows Red Rock LLC was not a party.

This information was all provided to the court on 1/23/23 in my motion to reconsider and my motion to strike all rogue filings of non-party Red Rock LLC. (Doc # 120). These motions were scheduled to be heard on 2/28/23 (CNOH Doc #121), but Judge Peterson ignored it, and declared at the 2/2/23 ex parte hearing that the motions were denied and that Nationstar and Red Rock who were present at the unnoticed hearing were exempt from EDCR 2.20(e).

Nevada case law is clear. This court lacks jurisdiction to grant judgment for or against non-party Red Rock LLC

I.C.A.N. Foods, Inc. v. Sheppard (In re Aboud Inter Vivos Trust), 314 P.3d 941, 946 (Nev. 2013) (“Young v. Nev. Title Co., 103 Nev. 436, 442, 744 P.2d 902, 905 (1987) (“A court does not have jurisdiction to enter judgment for or against one who is not a party to the action.””)

To be the Plaintiff, you have to file the complaint.

Moore v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 69367, at *2 (Nev. App. Jan. 13, 2017) (“The district court clearly erred by failing to apply the Nevada Revised Statutes, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, and applicable precedent from our supreme court, and by entering judgment without a trial in favor of a party that never even pled a claim for relief”)

Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership, not LLC, filed the complaint. Red Rock LLC did not file any claims and is not the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff Red Rock (sometimes “RRFS”), with an interest in the proceedings, was Sun City Anthem’s former managing agent, FSR dba Red Rock Financial Services (EIN 88-0358132). FSR (formerly known as RMI Management LLC) dba Red Rock held the NRS 649 debt collection license, performed debt cllection services for SCA under a contract for the applicable time period executed onthat was terminated by SCA on 4/26/15. conducted the wrongful foreclosure of my late fiance’s home in 2014 and wrongfully failed to distribute to her the excess proceeds from the sale, did not file any response to my motion.

The Plaintiff is identified on Doc # 2 the Complaint.

Red Rock LLC is not the Plaintiff, and the attorney Steven Scow who filed the complaint knows it.

NRCP 10(a) requires all parties to be named in the original complaint.

Rule 10. Form of Pleadings

(a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading must have a caption with the court’s name, the county, a title, a case number, anda Rule 7(a) designation. The caption of the complaint must name all the parties; the caption of other pleadings, after naming the first party on each side, may refer generally to other parties.
NRCP 10(a)

The Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure also identifies who an attorney is representing in a case. The Plaintiff is not Red Rock LLC.

Although both Plaintiff Red Rock and non-party Red Rock LLC are Steven Scow’s clients, he didn’t claim to be representing both of them in this case until he decided to start filing into the case for unknown reasons on behalf of the non-party. Doc No. 1 is Scow’s IAFD for Red Rock, with no Red Rock LLC in sight.

To be a Defendant you have to have received proper service of process

Levin v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, No. 63941, at *6 (Nev. Sep. 11, 2017) (“Service of process is required before a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a person or entity. C.H.A. Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Eng’rs, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 384, 794 P.2d 707, 709 (1990) (“Personal service or a legally provided substitute must still occur in order to obtain jurisdiction over a party.”). Moreover, “[a] district court is empowered to render a judgment either for or against a person or entity only if it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter,” and a district court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a party—even one with actual notice of the proceedings—unless that party has first been adequately served. Id. at 383-84, 794 P.2d at 708-09 (emphasis added)”)

The facts in the court record show that Red Rock LLC was never served any claims against it. Therefore, it is not a defendant.

The only summons served in case A-21-828840-C were Doc No. 8 (Republic Services), Doc No. 9 (Wells Fargo), Doc No. 10 (Nona Tobin as an individual), Doc No. 11 (Nona Tobin as the trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08), Doc No. 12 (Nationstar Mortgage LLC).

Red Rock LLC is not a Cross-Defendant as no party filed any claims against it.

I’m the only party who filed any cross-claims, and I certainly didnt file any claims against Red Rock LLC. Therefore, Red Rock LLC is not a cross defendant.

To intervene, you have to show you have an interest in the proceedings. Red Rock LLC had no interest.

Non-party Red Rock LLC did not file a motion to interveneTo intervene, NRCP 24 requires a timely motion and an interest in the subject non-party Red Rock LLC does not have. Non-party Red Rock LLC did not file a motion to intervene

Non-party Red Rock LLC has no interest in the subject of the proceedings.

Non-party Red Rock LLC did not ever have any contractual relationship with the HOA, Sun City Anthem, under whose statutory authority the HOA sale was conducted. Non-party Red Rock LLC did not conduct the 8/15/14 foreclosure sale of 2763 White Sage.

Non-party Red Rock LLC did not ever possess, hold in trust, or have any interest in, the $57,282.32 excess proceeds that Plaintiff/Counter-defendant/HOA Sale Trustee Red Rock failed to distribute after the 8/15/14 sale.

Non-party Red Rock LLC is not the entity that disregarded the NRS 116.31164(3)(c) (2013) mandate to distribute all the proceeds after the sale in 2014 in the manner proscribed by that clear and unambiguous controlling statute.

Non-party Red Rock LLC is not the entity that is still unlawfully withholding the $57,282.32 excess proceeds from sole claimant Tobin, 8+ years after the sale, pending action by this court.

Therefore, non-party Red Rock LLC never timely filed the required NRCP 24(a)(2) motion to intervene. It could not assert it had an interest it did not have:

“an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.”
NRCP 24(a)(2)

Further, there is no provision in NRCP 24 for a court to sua sponte allow a non-party to intervene when there has been no motion to intervene wherein the non-party claimed it had an interest that could not otherwise be protected. NRCP 24 requires a timely motion to initiate intervention. NRCP 24 does not give a court sua sponte authority to turn an entity that did not file and serve the complaint into the Plaintiff. NRCP 24 does not give a court sua sponte authority to turn an entity against whom no claims were filed or served into a Counter-defendant.

It is outside the court’s jurisdiction court to decide for or against a non-party.

Young v. Nevada Title Co., 103 Nev. 436, 442 (Nev. 1987)

“The district court was without the power to retain jurisdiction over non-parties because it never had such jurisdiction in the first place. A court does not have jurisdiction to enter judgment for or against one who is not a party to the action. Quine v. Godwin, 646 P.2d 294, 298(Ariz.Ct.App. 1982); Fazzi v. Peters, 440 P.2d 242, 245(Cal. 1968). Accordingly, it is clear the district court erred in entering judgment in favor of non-parties.”)

Moore v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 69367, at *3 n.2 (Nev. App. Jan. 13, 2017) (“Booke was not a party to the case, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to enter any judgment against him. See NRCP 4(d); Schwob v. Hemsath, 98 Nev. 293, 294, 646 P.2d 1212, 1212 (1982) (“Without proper service of process the district court acquires no. jurisdiction over a party.”) (citing Brockbank v. District Court, 65 Nev. 781, 201 P.2d 299 (1948); State v. District Court, 51 Nev. 206, 273 P. 659 (1929)). ”)

Steven Scow’s misrepresentation caused Judge Peterson to unwittingly act outside her jurisdiction to grant non-party Red Rock LLC’s 4/16/21 motion to dismiss.

Steven Scow knows which client he is representing, but he began the charade that Red Rock LLC was a party in April 2021 and prevented the case from concluding then as it should have.

Possibly Steven Scow was concealing that his client Plaintiff Red Rock also didn’t have standing to file the interpleader complaint either, but I’ll leave that for another blog.

To have standing to file an interpleader action,

According to Nationstar’s attorneys in 2016, Nationstar had standing to assert a quiet title claim under NRS 40.010…

Note that Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming to be the beneficial owner of the disputed Hansen deed of trust due to its many conflicting and false claims made into the court record and in the official Clark County property record.

According to Nationstar’s attorneys in 2016, Nationstar could not be bound by Jimijack’s default judgment against B of A because Jimijack did not name Nationstar as a defendant

According to Nationstar’s attorneys in 2019, Nona Tobin’s known interest in the property should be disregarded so Nationstar and Jimijack could settle the title dispute without joining her..and without presenting a case.

Link to 4/23/19 hearing transcript where Nationstar and Jimijack settled the title dispute ex parte by excluding Nona Tobin

Link to “A simple fable: Jimijack and Nationstar weaponize settlement”

According to Nationstar’s attorneys in 2019, Nona Tobin did not have standing to assert a quiet title claim as an individual and was bound by the 6/24/19 order from a trial that excluded her.

Link to 6/24/19 trial order that granted quiet title to Jimijack vs. the Gordon B. Hansen Trust which Nationstar claims is preclusive of all Nona Tobin’s claims

Judge Kishner excused Nationstar and the HOA from the trial although neither of whom had any filed claims against Nona Tobin or the Hansen Trust, and despite the fact that the HOA’s motion for summary judgment against only the Hansen Trust’s quiet title claim was improper and unwarranted as the HOA had no interest in the title and would not have been damaged in any way if the HOA’s attorneys had simply done nothing. The effect of the court’s granting the HOA’s motion for quiet title and Nationstar’s joinder was to give the title to give the title to Plaintiff s Nationstar and Jimack without requiring them to put on a case and preventing Nona Tobin from putting on hers.

Judge Kishner compounded her errors of never ruling on Tobin’s claim that Jmiack’s deed was inadmissible and that Nationstar was lying bout owning the beneficial interest of the Hansen deed of trust, by meeting ex parte with Nationstar and Jimijack attorneys, letting them convince her that Nona Tobin’s pro se filings should be stricken from the record unheard, and by letting them “settle” non-existent claims (Jimijack never filed any claims against Nationstar), and by failing to check the settlement documents (to see that neither Jimijack nor Nationstar were parties to the “settlement agreement” that took the title from Nona Tobin without her being given an opportunity to be heard as Nationstar so eloquently demanded for itself in 2016.

Judge Kishner also excluded from the trial all documentary evidence for Joseph Hong’s misconduct, which damaged only Nona Tobin.

Judge Kishner also excluded from the trial five of the six Hansen Trust’s causes of action (equitable relief (noncompliance with HOA governing documents), civil conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment), made on 1/31/17 CRCM vs SCA, 2/1/17 AACC vs. Jimijack (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and preliminary and permanent injunctions), and 2/1/17 CRCM vs. Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, and civil conspiracy)

Judge Kishner also excluded from the trial Nona Tobin as an individual and ALL of Nona Tobin’s individual causes of action (quiet title & equitable relief (statutory non-compliance), equitable relief (noncompliance with HOA governing documents), civil conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment) made on 1/31/17 CRCM vs SCA, 2/1/17 AACC vs. Jimijack (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and preliminary and permanent injunctions), and 2/1/17 CRCM vs. Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, and civil conspiracy)

Link to Nona Tobin’s 8/7/19 quiet title complaint as an individual that Nationstar asserted Nona Tobin had no right to file because

Link to Red Rock’s 6/23/19 motion to dismiss Nona Tobin’s claims

Red Rock claims res judicata even though none of Nona Tobin’s claims have ever been adjudicated.

Link to Nationstar’s 6/25/19 joinder to motion to dismiss that includes Nationstar’s misstatement of the facts to make claims preclusion apply to Nona Tobin’s claims that were never heard.

A. Note that Nationstar fails to mention that Nationstar never filed any quiet title claims against Nona Tobin or against the HOA or against Red Rock or against Nona Tobin as the trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust.

B. Note that Nationstar fails to mention that Nationstar and Jimijack made a fraudulent side deal excluding Nona Tobin for the corrupt purpose of obstructing judicial scrutiny of Tobin’s evidence.

On 1/10/19, the Court granted leave to amend, but not to add parties or claims which is tantamount to not granting the 11/30/18 motion to amend. Since the order was not entered, Nationstar cannot now claim “Tobin cannot now use this action to complete the efforts she abandoned in the prior action.”

Link to 3/14/19 complaint against Nationstar to the Nevada Attorney General unadjudicated and included as an exhibit to Nona Tobin’s 4/10/19 opposition to Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment against Jimijack

Link to Nona Tobin’s 4/10/19 opposition to Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment and counter-motion for summary judgment that was stricken at the 4/23/19 ex parte meeting between Nationstar, Jimijack and Judge Kishner

Link to Nona Tobin’s 4/10/19 motion for summary judgment against Jimijack that was stricken unheard at the 4/23/19 ex parte meeting between Nationstar, Jimijack and Judge Kishner

Link to Nona Tobin’s 4/10/19 motion for summary judgment against all parties that was stricken unheard at the 4/23/19 ex parte meeting between Nationstar, Jimijack and Judge Kishner

Tag: who has standing

Three ways of demonstrating a lack of judicial impartiality