Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01021/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01021-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 15:0045 Federal Trade Commission Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Shizue S. White, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Aurora Loan Services LLC, Nationstar 

Mortgage LLC, 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-1021-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Aurora Loan Servicing, LLC and 

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Rule 19 Motion to Join an Indispensable Party; or, in the 

Alternative, for Permissive Joinder of a Non-Party Defendant. (Doc. 46). The Court has 

considered Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 47), and 

Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 48). The Court now rules on the motion. 

I. Background 

 In its previous Order, the Court summarized the background of this dispute as 

follows: 

Plaintiff refinanced her house in March 2007, with the lender on the note 

being American Broker’s Conduit. Doc. 13 at 3; Doc. 36 at 2. The note was 

secured by a Deed of Trust under which the Trustee was Chicago Title 

Insurance Company and the beneficiary was Mortgage Electronic 

Registrations Systems, Inc. (“MERS”). Defendants allege that American 

Case 2:14-cv-01021-JAT Document 66 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Broker’s Conduit hired Aurora Loan Services, L.L.C. (“Aurora”) to service 

the note. Doc. 13 at 2. Defendants allege that at some point American 

Broker’s Conduit sold or assigned the note and its proceeds to U.S. Bank as 

Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the LXS 2007 7N Trust Fund 

(“U.S.Bank”). Doc. 13 at 13. Defendants further allege that after July 1, 

2012, either American Broker’s Conduit or U.S. Bank relieved Aurora of 

its servicing responsibilities, and engaged Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. 

(“Nationstar”) to service the note. Doc. 13 at 2. 

Nationstar contends that it is still the servicer through today, and that being 

a servicer is its only involvement with this transaction. However, the 

record, including Nationstar’s own filings, shows that Nationstar’s legal 

obligations go beyond that of merely being a servicer. For example, MERS 

assigned the beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust that secures Plaintiff’s 

residence to Nationstar. Doc. 13 at 13; 51. Notably, MERS made this 

assignment as nominee for American Broker’s Conduit on August 31, 

2012. Then, on November 6, 2013, MERS (as nominee for American 

Broker’s Conduit) assigned the “Deed of Trust,” including MERS’ 

“beneficial interest under the Deed of Trust” to U.S. Bank (in the fiduciary 

capacity listed above). Doc. 38 at 21. After MERS assigned its beneficial 

interest in the Deed of Trust that secures Plaintiff’s residence to two 

different entities, on February 26, 2014, Nationstar as “Attorney in Fact” 

for U.S. Bank appointed Clear Recon Corporation as Trustee of the Deed of 

Trust that secures Plaintiff’s residence. Doc. 13 at 13, 48. Defendants 

further allege that Clear Recon Corporation noticed a Trustee sale on April 

26, 2014. Doc. 8 at 8. As indicated above, this Court enjoined that sale. 

White v. Aurora Loan Servs. LLC, 2014 WL 5080904, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 9, 2014). 

II. Motion to Join a Required Party 

A. Legal Standard 

 Defendants move to join U.S. Bank as a necessary party under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 19. (Doc. 46). “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 governs the question 

of whether a person not a party to a suit should be joined because he is necessary for a 

more complete settlement of the dispute.” Cutrona v. Sun Health Corp., 2007 WL 

4150210, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2007). Rule 19 provides, in pertinent part: 

(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible. (1) Required Party. A person 

who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the 

Case 2:14-cv-01021-JAT Document 66 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: (A) in that 

person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing 

parties; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the 

action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence 

may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to 

protect the interest or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk 

of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because 

of the interest. (2) Joinder by Court Order. If a person has not been joined 

as required, the court must order that the person be made a party. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)–(2); see Damian v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2014 WL 1285892, at *3 

(D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2014) (“A party is ‘necessary’ if in its absence, meaningful relief 

cannot be afforded to those who are already joined, thus risking multiple lawsuits on the 

same issue.” (quoting Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 

861 (9th Cir. 2004))). The absence of a necessary party under Rule 19 may be properly 

raised by any party “at any stage in the proceeding.” CP Nat’l Corp. v. Bonneville Power 

Admin., 928 F.2d 905, 911–12 (9th Cir. 1991); Weimer v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. 

Dist., 184 F.R.D. 309, 310–11 (D. Ariz. 1998). Importantly, “[a]n entity’s status as a 

‘necessary’ party is not judged by any prescribed formula, but instead ‘can only be 

determined in the context of particular litigation.’” CP Nat’l Corp., 928 F.2d at 912 

(quoting Provident Tradesman Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 118 

(1968)). 

 B. Discussion 

 Defendants argue U.S. Bank must be joined as a party defendant for several 

reasons. Defendants first claim that without joining U.S. Bank, Plaintiff would be 

afforded incomplete relief. (Doc. 46 at 4). Second, Defendants assert that in U.S. Bank’s 

absence, Plaintiff would be forced to re-litigate the same issues in a separate action. (Id.) 

Defendants also complain that the ability of U.S. Bank to foreclose on the property 

secured by the deed of trust (“Subject Property”) is legally “unclear” and forcing 

Defendants to “shoulder the litigation” for U.S. Bank is “unfair.” (Id.) Finally, 

Defendants contend that U.S. Bank’s ability to protect its interest in the Subject Property 

Case 2:14-cv-01021-JAT Document 66 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

would be impaired if the Court issued a permanent injunction. (Id.) In summary, 

Defendants “would like U.S. Bank to become a party defendant” because Plaintiff is 

seeking a permanent injunction against foreclosure of the Subject Property. (Id. at 7).1

 

 In her Response, Plaintiff contends that U.S. Bank does not have an interest in the 

litigation and believes “that the proper parties are named in the Complaint.” (Doc. 47 at 

5). In fact, “Plaintiff has no intention to pursue further actions against U.S. Bank.” (Id.) 

Moreover, Plaintiff suggests “U.S. Bank and Defendants share the same interests” and 

“protective provisions” could lessen any prejudice to U.S. Bank resulting from a 

permanent injunction. (Id.) 

 As a preliminary matter, the Court construes Defendants’ papers to concede that 

MERS’ August 31, 2012 assignment to Nationstar of its beneficial interest in the Deed of 

Trust securing the Subject Property (Doc. 1 at 46; Doc. 13 at 13; Doc. 13-1 at 51) is no 

longer operative.2

 Rather, U.S. Bank is the sole beneficiary “under the Deed of Trust” 

resulting from MERS’ November 6, 2013 “Corporate Assignment” to U.S. Bank. (Doc. 

9-2 at 59; Doc. 38 at 21; Doc. 59 at 2).3

 In fact, Nationstar, as U.S. Bank’s attorney in 

fact (Doc. 31-3 at 2), is merely U.S. Bank’s servicing agent and does not own any 

beneficial or property interest in the Deed of Trust. (Doc. 48 at 2). Therefore, the issue 

presented is whether the borrower under a deed of trust can permanently enjoin the deed 

 

1

 If Plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction were abandoned, Defendants note, U.S. Bank would not have an interest in the litigation, rendering the present motion moot. (Doc. 48 at 3, 5). 

2

 In their papers, Defendants assert that “U.S. Bank is the beneficiary of the deed of trust securing Plaintiff’s mortgage” (Doc. 48 at 2) and “U.S. Bank claims an interest in 

the Subject Property as described by the recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust in its name . . . .” (Doc. 46 at 4). Defendants also entitle U.S. Bank as “the actual owner of the 

Deed of Trust.” (Id. at 6). Moreover, Defendants compare themselves with U.S. Bank by noting that “only U.S. Bank has a property interest that will be impaired by an injunction and only U.S. Bank has insurance” while “the present Defendants have no property interests in the subject property whatsoever.” (Doc. 48 at 5). Finally, “Defendants have taken steps to clarify beyond any doubt that U.S. Bank, and not Nationstar, is the 

beneficiary of the Deed of Trust at issue in this action.” (Doc. 59 at 2). 

3

 Assuming U.S. Bank is the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust and given the fact that Nationstar has given notice of this lawsuit to its principal, U.S. Bank, it would appear that U.S. Bank could file a motion to intervene in order to protect its interests as the 

outright owner of the Deed of Trust. 

Case 2:14-cv-01021-JAT Document 66 Filed 03/31/15 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

of trust’s beneficiary’s servicing agent from foreclosing on the underlying property 

without “impairing” the ability of the beneficiary to protect its interest by foreclosing on 

the property. After careful consideration, the Court answers in the affirmative. 

 As a general matter, while a permanent injunction against a principal (in this case 

U.S. Bank) would restrict the ability of its agent (Nationstar) to foreclose on a property, 

the reverse is not true. A permanent injunction against an agent will not eradicate the 

principal’s right to foreclose. Thus, a principal is not necessarily required to be joined to 

litigation against its agent. See Le Baron v. Kern Cnty. Farm Labor Union, 80 F. Supp. 

151, 157 (S.D. Cal. 1948) (“[I]t is not necessary that a principal be made a party to an 

action if relief, such as an injunction, is sought only against the agent.”). 

 In this case, assuming Plaintiff prevails on all claims as set forth in her complaint 

(Doc. 1), a permanent injunction would be issued against Nationstar and Aurora only. 

Consequently, as stated by Defendants, “U.S. Bank could proceed with a foreclosure or 

sale of the subject property at any time in the future using a different servicing agent.” 

(Doc. 48 at 2) (emphasis added). In other words, whatever the final result of this case (as 

it is presently positioned) may be, the ability of U.S. Bank to enforce its interest by 

foreclosing on the Subject Property will in no way be impaired.4

 

 For this very reason, Defendants argue that Plaintiff would not obtain meaningful 

relief without joining U.S. Bank as a party defendant. (Id.) However, if Plaintiff prevails 

on her claims, she would obtain meaningful relief because the named Defendants would 

be barred from foreclosing on the Subject Property.5

 

 

4

 The Court recognizes that if Plaintiff prevails on all of her claims, U.S. Bank would not be able to utilize Defendants’ services to foreclose on the Subject Property. However, the Court does not consider this minimal hindrance to rise to the level of 

“impairment” or “impediment” contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. 

5

 The Court notes that Plaintiff demands “The prevention of any foreclosure sales 

of 11126 Nocturne Court, Sun City AZ 85251.” (Doc. 1 at 16) (emphasis added). At the time of this motion and corresponding briefing, Plaintiff was litigating pro se. Because 

Plaintiff was pro se, the Court liberally construes the meaning of the word “any” consistent with her opposition to Defendant’s motion to join. Thus, the Court finds that “any foreclosure sales” means the prevention of “any foreclosure sales” by the named Defendants only. The Court does not speculate as to whether this is the result Plaintiff 

ultimately desires. Of course, if Plaintiff desires to prevent any foreclosure of the Subject 

Case 2:14-cv-01021-JAT Document 66 Filed 03/31/15 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IV. Motion to Dismiss 

 In the alternative, Defendants argue that if U.S. Bank cannot be joined to this 

action, the case must be dismissed under Rule 19(b). (Doc. 46). Rule 19(b) states, in 

pertinent part: “If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the 

court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed 

among the existing parties or should be dismissed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b) (emphasis 

added). 

 As discussed, U.S. Bank is not “required to be joined” to this action and any 

possible prejudice to U.S. Bank would be de minimis. Accordingly, the Court will deny 

Defendants’ motion. 

V. Motion to Permissively Join 

 Finally, Defendants argue that if U.S. Bank is not required to be joined and the 

case is not dismissed, the Court should permissively join U.S. Bank under Rule 20. 

(Doc. 46). Rule 20 provides, in pertinent part: 

(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if: 

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the 

alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, 

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of 

law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Based upon the plain language of Rule 20(a)(2), Defendants 

must make a two-prong showing, which they have not done. Defendants have failed to 

show that “any right to relief” against U.S. Bank has been asserted; thus, they have not 

established the first element. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion. 

VII. Conclusion 

 Considering the convoluted facts of this case,6

 the exact interests of each entity 

 Property by any entity with the legal right to foreclose, she must move to amend her 

complaint to name all parties with a beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust. 

6

 The Court notes, for example, that MERS assigned its entire interest in the Deed of Trust to two different entities (Nationstar and U.S. Bank); the October 31, 2013 

Case 2:14-cv-01021-JAT Document 66 Filed 03/31/15 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

involved in Plaintiff’s mortgage and loan could be arduous to determine. Thus, the Court 

understands Plaintiff’s hesitancy to join U.S. Bank, a seemingly blameless non-party, to 

the litigation. Plaintiff should nonetheless move to amend her complaint if she determines 

she must sue U.S. Bank to get the full relief she desires. For the reasons set forth above, 

however, the Court will not force her to do so. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Join an Indispensable Party; or, in the 

Alternative, for Permissive Joinder of a Non-Party Defendant (Doc. 46) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 31st day of March, 2015. 

 foreclosure notice stated that “NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, INC. . . . is the creditor to 

whom the debt is owed” (Doc. 1 at 50), yet the March 7, 2014 Notice of Trustee’s Sale 

notice named U.S. Bank as the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust (Doc. 1 at 53); the 

August 16, 2012 letter from U.S. Bank to Plaintiff noted that “All actions related to your mortgage would have been done by Nationstar/Aurora as servicer. . . . U.S. Bank does 

not have . . . any control over the mortgage servicer” (Doc. 47 at 11); the servicing agents were substituted; and the trustee for the Deed of Trust changed. 

Case 2:14-cv-01021-JAT Document 66 Filed 03/31/15 Page 7 of 7