IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MONICA JONES, No. 68470
Appellant,
vs.
CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE
CORPORATION; WELLS FARGO FILED
MASTER SERVICING; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION APR 1 5 2016
SYSTEMS, INC.; WELLS FARGO BANK, TRACE K. LINCFMAN
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
N.A.; AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE BY 4_,
__SLYSztaa
SERVICING, INC.; AND U.S. BANK DEPUTY CLERK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE
FOR TBW MORTGAGE-BACKED TRUST
MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-3,
Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order, certified as
final under NRCP 54(b), granting a motion to dismiss in a quiet title
action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; William D. Kephart,
Judge.
Appellant contends that the district court erred by denying
her "Opposition and Counter Motion without stating a reason" for the
denial. Having considered appellant's appeal statement and the record,
we perceive no reversible error in the district court's decision to dismiss
Wells Fargo Master Servicing, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Wells Fargo Bank, and American Home Mortgage Servicing from the
underlying action, as appellant acknowledged that she was not seeking
any relief against those entities even though those entities were named as
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I.07A
ao-11t7G,
defendants in appellant's second amended complaint.' We likewise
perceive no reversible error in the district court's refusal to impose
sanctions or hold any attorneys in contempt because, among other
reasons, the district court was within its discretion in determining that
the complained-of conduct did not warrant sanctions or a contempt order.
See In re Water Rights of the Humboldt River, 118 Nev. 901, 907, 59 P.3d
1226, 1230 (2002); Bergmann v. Boyce, 109 Nev. 670, 676, 856 P.2d 560,
564 (1993). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
J.
Douglas
Cherry 71 Gibbo
cc: Hon. William D. Kephart, District Judge
Monica Jones
Wright, Finlay & Zak, LIP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
1 Because those entities were named as defendants, the district court
had jurisdiction to rule on their motion to dismiss, which was brought
under NRCP 12(b)(5). See Fritz Hansen A/ S v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court, 116 Nev. 650, 656-57, 6 P.3d 982, 986 (2000) (recognizing that lack
of service of process does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over
a defendant when the defendant chooses not to raise that defense).
2 We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and conclude
that they do not warrant reversal of the appealed order.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ea)