Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 2:17-cv-00326-JCM-NJK. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20190426d01 Visitors: 2
Filed: Apr. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2019
Summary: JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AGAINST ELIZABETH ROCHA AND HORATIO ROCHA JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . This matter came before the Court on SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's ("SFR") application for default judgment against Cross-Defendants ELIZABETH ROCHA AND HORATIO ROCHA ("the Rochas" or "Cross-Defendants"). Having considered the application, including the declarations attached thereto, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. On June 12, 2017, SFR filed a Cross-Cla
More

JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AGAINST ELIZABETH ROCHA AND HORATIO ROCHA

This matter came before the Court on SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's ("SFR") application for default judgment against Cross-Defendants ELIZABETH ROCHA AND HORATIO ROCHA ("the Rochas" or "Cross-Defendants"). Having considered the application, including the declarations attached thereto, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. On June 12, 2017, SFR filed a Cross-Claim for quiet title and declaratory relief against the Rochas ("Cross-Claim") (ECF No. 16) relating to real property located at 7828 Drydust Court, Las Vegas, Nevada 89081; Parcel No. 125-18-113-072 ("Property").

2. Cross-Defendants failed to answer the complaint within the 21-day time limit set forth in FRCP 12. The Clerk of the Court appropriately entered a default against the Rochas on October 26, 2017 (ECF No. 54).

3. The Rochas are not incompetent, infants or serving in the United States military.

4. SFR submitted credible evidence in support of its application in the form of documents obtained from the Official Records of the Clark County Recorder and declarations made under penalty of perjury that demonstrate prima facie grounds sufficient to enter default judgment against the Espinosas.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to FRCP 55(b)(2), having considered the evidence and made the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and finding good cause,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Cross-Defendants, the Rochas, any successors and assigns, have no right, title or interest in the Property and that SFR is the rightful title owner.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this judgment does not adjudicate SFR's claims against, or the defenses of, any other party to this case.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer