IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
`
`
`MARINA FRANCO MENDEZ,
`
` Appellant,
`
` v.
`
`PRIME EQUITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
`Nevada Limited Liability Company; RJR
`HOMES LLC, a Nevada Limited
`Liability Company,
`
` Respondents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Docket No. 90110
`
`
`Electronically Filed
`Mar 24 2025 03:21 PM
`Elizabeth A. Brown
`Clerk of Supreme Court
`
`
`DOCKETING STATEMENT CIVIL APPEALS
`
`GENERAL INFORMATION
`
`Appellants must complete this docketing statement in compliance with Nevada
`Rules of Appellate Procedure NRAP 14(a). The purpose of the docketing statement
`is to assist the Supreme Court in screening jurisdiction, identifying issues on appeal,
`assessing assignment to the Court of Appeals under NRAP 17, scheduling cases for
`oral argument and settlement conferences, classifying cases for expedited treatment,
`and compiling statistical information.
`
`
`WARNING
`
`This statement must be completed fully, accurately, and on time. NRAP 14(c). The
`Supreme Court may impose sanctions on counsel or the appellant if it appears that
`the information provided is incomplete or inaccurate. Id. Failure to fill out the
`statement completely or to file it in a timely manner constitutes grounds for the
`imposition of sanctions, including a fine and/or dismissal of the appeal. Id.
`
` A
`
` complete list of the documents that must be attached appears as Question 28 on
`this docketing statement. Failure to attach all required documents will result in the
`delay of your appeal and may result in the imposition of sanctions. Id.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Docket 90110 Document 2025-13295
`
`

`

`This court has noted that when obligations under NRAP 14 to complete the
`docketing statement properly and conscientiously are not taken seriously, valuable
`judicial resources of this court are wasted, making the imposition of sanctions
`appropriate. See KDI Sylvan Pools v. Workman, 107 Nev. 340, 344, 810 P.2d 1217,
`1220 (1991). Please use divider pages to separate any attached documents.
`
`1. Judicial District: Eighth
`
`
`
` County: Clark
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Judge: Honorable Ronald Israel District Court Case No: A-23-877707-C
`
`Department: XVIII
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Person filing this docketing statement:
`
`Name: R. Christopher Reade, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`
` Bar No.
`
`
`
`6791
`
`Firm:
`
`Cory Reade Dows & Shafer
`
`Address 1333 North Buffalo, Suite 210 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128
`
`
`
`Email:
`
`creade@crdslaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Client(s) Marina Franco Mendez
`
`
`If this is a joint statement by multiple appellants, add the names and
`addresses of the other appellants and, if applicable, the names of their
`counsel and have them sign the certification below.
`
`Name:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Bar No.
`
`
`
`
`
`Firm:
`
`
`
`Address
`
`Email:
`
`
`
`Client(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I certify that I concur in the filing of this Statement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature of other appellant(s) or of counsel for other appellant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`3. Nature of the disposition below:
`
`□ Judgment after bench trial
`
`□ Judgment after jury verdict
`
`■ Summary judgment
`
`□ Default judgment
`
`■ Grant/Denial of NRCP 60(b) relief
`
`□ Grant/Denial of injunction
`
`■ Dismissal:
`
` ■
`
` □
`
` □
`
` □
`
`Lack of jurisdiction
`
`Failure to state a claim
`
`Failure to prosecute
`
`Other (specify):
`
`□ Divorce Decree:
`
` □
`
`Original
`
` □ Modification
`
`■ Grant/Denial of declaratory relief
`
`□ Review of agency determination
`
`□ Other disposition (specify):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Does this appeal raise issues concerning any of the following?
`
`□ Child Custody
`
`□ Venue
`
`□ Termination of parental rights
`
`
`5. Pending and prior proceedings in this court. List the case name and docket
`number of all appeals or original proceedings presently or previously pending
`before this court which are related to this appeal: None
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`6. Pending and prior proceedings in other courts. List the case name, number
`and court of all pending and prior proceedings in other courts which are related
`to this appeal (e.g., bankruptcy, consolidated or bifurcated proceedings) and their
`dates of disposition:
`
`None.
`
`7. Nature of the action. Briefly describe the nature of the action, including a list of
`the causes of action pleaded, and the result below:
`
`Appellant Maria Franco Mendez (“Mendez”) married Damaso Ortiz-Batalla
`in Mexico in 1994 and has been so married since that time. On or about November
`6th, 2000, Mendez and Ortiz jointly purchased a residence at 2125 Flower Avenue,
`North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property was
`purchased with community funds and has been the family home since 2000. On
`September 8th, 2023, Ortiz purported to sell the family home to Respondent Prime
`Equity Solutions through Respondent RJR Homes without the knowledge,
`permission or execution of Appellant Mendez.
`
`Mendez filed a Complaint against Prime Equity Solutions and Damaso Ortiz-
`Batalla for (1) quiet title; (2) injunctive relief; (3) declaratory relief; (4) negligence;
`(5) conversion; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) constructive trust; (8) slander of title; and
`(9) cancellation/voiding of instrument. Respondent Prime Equity Solutions filed an
`Answer and Counterclaim/Cross-Claim for (a) quiet title; (b) slander of title; (c)
`intentional misrepresentation/fraud; (d) unjust enrichment; (e) civil conspiracy (f)
`conversion; (g) equitable lien/equitable subrogation; (h) declaratory relief; (i) breach
`of contract against RJR; (j) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
`dealing against RJR; (k) intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent, and/or negligent
`concealment against RJR; (l) negligence against RJR; (m) indemnification against
`RJR; (n) contribution against RJR; (o) unlawful detainer; and (p) trespass. The
`District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Prime Equity Solutions on all
`claims and against Appellant Mendez. Appellant Mendez brought a motion to alter
`or amend the judgment which was denied by the District Court.
`
`. . . .
`
`4
`
` .
`
` .
`
` .
`
` .
`
`
`
` . . .
`
` . . .
`
` . . .
`
` . . .
`
`

`

`State concisely the principal issue(s) in this appeal:
`
`8. Issues of appeal:
`
`A. Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment against Appellant on
`Appellant’s quiet title claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?
`B. Did the District Court err in finding that the District Court has jurisdiction and
`in granting summary judgment in favor of Prime Equity Solutions on
`Appellant’s quiet title claims that involve the same issues as Appellant’s
`claims?
`C. Did the District Court err in refusing to apply NRS 123.230 in light of the fact
`that the Deed to the marital residence lacked any signature by Appellant?
`D. Did the District Court err in finding that Appellant failed to present any
`evidence of her marriage to Ortiz?
`E. Did the District Court err in finding that there was no question of material fact
`but that Mendez was aware that her name was not on title to the Property?
`F. Did the District Court err in finding that Appellant had a duty to record her
`foreign marriage with the Clark County Recorder?
`G. Did the District Court err in holding that spouses are required to add their
`names to community property within ten years of acquisition of title?
`H. Did the District Court err in finding for purposes of summary judgment that a
`purchaser has no duty to investigate a property in order to obtain bona fide
`purchaser status?
`I. Did the District Court err in granting a writ of restitution when there was no
`proof of compliance with Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes?
`
`
`9. Pending proceedings in this court raising the same or similar issues. If you
`are aware of any proceedings presently pending before this court which raises the
`same or similar issues raised in this appeal, list the case name and docket numbers
`and identify the same or similar issue raised:
`
`None to the best of Appellant’s knowledge.
`
`. . . .
`
`5
`
` .
`
` .
`
` .
`
` .
`
`
`
`
`
`
` . . .
`
` . . .
`
` . . .
`
` . . .
`
`

`

`10. Constitutional issues. If this appeal challenges the constitutionality of a Nevada
`statute or ordinance?
`
` ■
`
` No. Continue to #11
`
`Identify the Nevada statute or ordinance being challenged:
`Is the State, any State agency or a State officer or employee a party to
`this appeal in an official capacity?
`□
`Yes
`
`□
`No
`
` □
`
`
`
`
`
` Yes:
`a.
`b.
`
`
`
`
`11. Other issues.
`
`a. Does this appeal involve any of the following issues?
`
` □
`
` Reversal if week-settled Nevada precedent (identify the case(s))
`
` □
`
` An issue arising under the United States and/or Nevada Constitutions
`
` ■
`
` A substantial issue of first impression
`
` ■
`
` An issue of public policy
`
` □
`
` An issue where en banc consideration is necessary to maintain uniformity of
`this court’s decisions
`
` □
`
` A ballot question
`
`b. If so, explain:
`
`The District Court’s decision splitting and then granting summary judgment on
`subject matter jurisdiction on quiet title claims is a matter of first impression. The
`District Court’s determination that spouses are required to record their foreign
`marriages in the public record is an issue of first impression and public policy.
`Finally the District Court’s refusal to protect and enforce community property in
`spite of NRS 123.230(3) is a matter of public policy.
`
`6
`
` .
`
` .
`
`
`
` . . .
`
` . . .
`
`

`

`
`12. Assignment to the Court of Appeals or retention in the Supreme Court.
`Briefly set forth whether the matter is retained by the Supreme Court or
`presumptively assigned to the Court of Appeals under NRAP 17, and cite the
`subparagraph(s) of the Rule under which the matter falls.
`
`This matter is not presumptively retained by the Nevada Supreme Court or
`presumptively assigned to the Court of Appeals pursuant to NRAP 17,
`
`13. Trial.
`If this action proceeded to trial, how many days did the trial last?
` _______ days.
`
`Was it a: bench trial
`
`
`
`
`
`jury trial?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Not applicable
`
`14. Judicial Disqualification. Do you intend to file a motion to disqualify or have
`a justice/judge recuse him/herself from participation in this appeal? See NRAP
`35. If so, which Justice/Judge?
`
`
`Not applicable.
`
`15. Oral argument. Would you object to submission of this appeal for disposition
`without oral argument?
`X
`Yes
`
`
`
` No.
`
`
`TIMELINESS OF APPEAL
`
`
`16. Date the written judgment(s) or order(s) appealed from was/were filed in the
`district court:
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Order Granting Prime Equity's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and
`Denying Plaintiff's Countermotion for Partial Summary Judgment, entered
`September 25, 2024
`
`B. Order Re: Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Maria Franco Mendez's Motion to Alter
`or Amend the Judgment, or in the alternative for N.R.C.P. 54(b) Certification
`of Judgment and Order Staying Enforcement of Judgment Pending Appeal;
`and Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, entered February 6, 2025
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`C. Order Re: Application For Order to Show Cause, Pursuant to NRS 40.300,
`Why A Permanent Writ of Restitution Shall Not Be Issued, entered February
`11, 2025.
`
`
`
`If no written judgment or order has been filed in the district court, explain the
`basis for seeking appellate review:
`
`
`17. Date written notice of entry of the judgment(s) or order(s) was/were served:
`Was service by:
`
` ■
`
`Electronic or personal delivery
`
`□ Mail
`
`
`A. Notice of Entry of Order Granting Prime Equity's Motion for Partial Summary
`Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's Countermotion for Partial Summary
`Judgment, entered September 25, 2024
`
`B. Notice of Entry of Order Re: Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Maria Franco
`Mendez's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, or in the alternative for
`N.R.C.P. 54(b) Certification of Judgment and Order Staying Enforcement of
`Judgment Pending Appeal; and Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, entered
`February 6, 2025
`
`C. Notice of Entry of Order Re: Application for Order to Show Cause, Pursuant
`to NRS 40.300, Why A Permanent Writ of Restitution Shall Not Be Issued,
`entered February 11, 2025.
`
`
`
`
`18. Were any motions seeking relief under NRCP 50(b), 52(b), 59, or 60 or seeking
`rehearing or reconsideration filed in the district court either before or after the
`notice of appeal was filed? (attach a copy of the motion)
`□ No, continue to # 19
`■ Yes:
`a.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Specify the type of motion and the date the motion was filed in the
`district court (check all that apply)
`
`
`
`
`□ NRCP 50(a)
`
`
`Date filed:
`■ NRCP 52(b)
`
`
`Date filed: October 23, 2024
`■ NRCP 59
`
`
`
`Date filed: October 23, 2024
`■ NRCP 60
`
`
`
`Date filed: October 23, 2024
`■ Rehearing/Reconsideration
`Date filed: October 23, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`d.
`
`
`
`
`Date the motion was served: October 23, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`How was the motion served:
`■
`Electronic or personal delivery
`□ Mail
`
`Date written order resolving the motion was filed: February 6, 2025
`
`e. Date written notice of entry of the order resolving the motion was
`served: February 6, 2025
`
`
`f. Was service by:
`
`■
`Electronic or personal delivery
`□ Mail
`
`
`
`19. Are there any motions other than those identified in #18 above still pending in
`the district court?
`
` ■
`
` Yes. Identify the motion and the date it was filed in the district court:
`
`
`Renewed Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens filed March 6, 2025
`
`
`
`□ No.
`
`
`
`20. Date the Notice of Appeal was filed in the District Court: February 11, 2025
`
`
`If more than one party has appealed from the judgment or order, list the date
`each notice of appeal was filed and identify by name the party filing the
`notice of appeal:
`
`
`21. Specify the statute or rule governing the time limit for filing the notice of
`appeal, e.g., NRAP 4(a) or other: NRAP 4(a) and NRS 40.380
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`SUBSTANTIVE APPEALABILITY
`
`22. Specify the statute or other authority granting this court jurisdiction to review
`the judgment or order appealed from:
`a.
`
`■ NRAP 3A(b)(1)
`
`□ NRAP 3A(b)(3)
`
`□ NRAP 3A(b)(5)
`
`□ NRAP 3A(b)(7)
`
`□ NRAP 3A(b)(9)
`□ NRAP 3A(b)(11)
`□ NRS 38.205
`
`□ NRS 703.376
`
`
`b. Explain how each authority provides a basis for appeal from the
`judgment or order:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`□ NRAP 3A(b)(2)
`□ NRAP 3A(b)(4)
`□ NRAP 3A(b)(6)
`□ NRAP 3A(b)(8)
`□ NRAP 3A(b)(10)
`□ NRAP 3A(b)(12)
`□ NRS 233B.150
`■ Other (specify): NRS 40.380
`
`
`The Order is appealable as a final judgment entered in an action or proceeding
`commenced in the court in which the judgment is rendered on the claims so
`rendered. The Judgment(s) are not final judgments of all claims as to all parties;
`however, the District Court has certified its Judgment(s) pursuant to NRCP 54(b).
`
`NRS 40.380 expressly allows a direct appeal from an Order for a Writ of
`Restitution entered under Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.
`
`
`23. List of all parties involved in the action or consolidated actions in the district
`court:
`
`a. Parties:
`
`Marina Franco Mendez
`Prime Equity Solutions
`RJR Homes
`
`
`Damaso Ortiz-Batalla
`
`b. If all parties in the district court are not parties to this appeal, explain in
`detail why those parties are not involved in this appeal, e.g. formally
`dismissed, not served, or other:
`
`Damaso Ortiz-Batalla was defaulted at the trial court level.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Appellant
`Defendant/Respondent
`Thiry-Party Defendant/Respondent
`Defendant
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`24. Give a brief description (3 to 5 words) of each party’s separate claims,
`counterclaims, cross-claims or third-party claims, and the date of formal
`disposition of each claim, and how each claim was resolved (i.e., order,
`judgment, stipulation), and the date of disposition of each claim.
`
`
`Mendez filed a Complaint for (1) quiet title; (2) injunctive relief; (3) declaratory
`relief; (4) negligence; (5) conversion; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) constructive trust;
`(8) slander of title; and (9) cancellation/voiding of instrument.
`
`Respondent Prime Equity Solutions filed an Answer and Counterclaim/Cross-Claim
`for (a) quiet title; (b) slander of title; (c) intentional misrepresentation/fraud; (d)
`unjust enrichment; (e) civil conspiracy (f) conversion; (g) equitable lien/equitable
`subrogation; (h) declaratory relief; (i) breach of contract against RJR; (j) breach of
`the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against RJR; (k) intentional
`misrepresentation, fraudulent, and/or negligent concealment against RJR; (l)
`negligence against RJR; (m) indemnification against RJR; (n) contribution against
`RJR; (o) unlawful detainer; and (p) trespass.
`
`The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Prime Equity Solutions on
`all first-party and counterclaims regarding title and possession of the real property
`by the Order Granting Prime Equity's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment And
`Denying Plaintiff's Countermotion For Partial Summary Judgment, entered
`September 25, 2024, as clarified by the Order Re: Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Maria
`Franco Mendez's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, or in the alternative for
`N.R.C.P. 54(b) Certification Of Judgment and Order Staying Enforcement of
`Judgment Pending Appeal; and Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, entered February
`6, 2025.
`
`25. Did the judgment or order appealed from adjudicate ALL of the claims alleged
`below and the rights and liabilities of ALL of the parties to the action or
`consolidated actions below? □ Yes
`■ No
`
`
`26. If you answered “No” to question, 25, complete the following:
`a. Specify the claims remaining pending below:
`
`All claims, counterclaims and cross-claims for damages remain at the District
`Court level.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`b. Specify the parties remaining below:
`
`All four parties remain subject to claims at the trial court level.
`
`c. Did the district court certify the judgment or order appealed from as a final
`judgment pursuant to NRCP 54(b)? ■ Yes □ No
`
`
`
`
`
`d. Did the Did the district court make an express determination, pursuant to
`NRCP 54(b), that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for
`the entry of judgment? ■ Yes
`□ No
`
`
`27. If you answered “No” to any part of question 26, explain the basis for seeking
`appellate review (e.g., order is independently appealable under NRAP 3A(b)):
`
`The District Court certified the Orders Granting Summary Judgment pursuant to
`NRCP 54(b). The Order Granting Writ of Restitution is directly appealable pursuant
`to NRS 40.380.
`
`28. Attach file-stamped copies of the following documents:
` The latest-filed complaint, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims
` Any motion(s) identified in questions 18 and the order(s) resolving the
`motion(s)
` Any motions identified in question 19
` Orders or NRCP 41(a)(1) dismissals that formally resolve each claim,
`counterclaim, cross- claim and/or third-party claim asserted in the action or
`consolidated action below, even if not at issue on appeal
` All orders that finally dispose of any parties in the action below, even if not
`at issue on appeal
` Any other order challenged on appeal
` Notices of entry for each attached order
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`VERIFICATION
`
` I
`
` declare under penalty of perjury that I have read this docketing statement,
`that the information provided in this docketing statement is true and complete
`to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that I have attached
`all required documents to this docketing statement.
`
`
`
`
` /s/ R. Christopher Reade, Esq. #6791
`Signature of Counsel of Record and Bar No.
`
`
`Clark County, Nevada
`
`State and County where signed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`March 24, 2025
`
`Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I hereby certify that on the 24th day of March, 2025, I served a copy of the
`
`attached DOCKETING STATEMENT by electronic means to the registered users of
`
`this court’s electronic filing system set forth herein:
`
`James E. Shapiro, Esq.
`SMITH & SHAPIRO, PLLC
`3333 E. Serene Ave., Suite 130
`Henderson, Nevada 89074
`jshapiro@smithshapiro.com
`Attorney for Prime Equity Solutions
`
`Robert Ryan, Esq.
`KNIGHT & RYAN
`8880 W. Sunset Rd., Ste. 130
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
`robert@knightryan.com
`Attorney for RJR Homes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Yvonne Giraud
`
`An Employee of Cory Reade Dows & Shafer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`COMPLAINT
`(September 13, 2023)
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed
`9/13/2023 2:23 PM
`Steven D. Grierson
`CLE
`OF THE Co Ri}
`
`.
`CASE NO: A-23-877707-
`Department2
`
`
`
`12
`PRIME EQUITY SOLUTIONSLLC,aEXEMPT) ARBITRATION
`
`
`Nevada Corporation; DAMASO ORTIZ-
`)
`(Action Concerning Title to Real Estate;
`13
`BATALLA,an individual; DOES 1 through
`=} Action for Declaratory Relief; Actions
`100 and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIESI
`) Seeking Equitable or Extraordinary
`through C, inclusive
`) Relief)
`)
`
`R. CHRISTOPHER READE, ESQ,
`Nevada Bar No. 006791
`CORY READE DOWS & SHAFER
`1333 North Buffalo Drive, Suite 210
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89128
`Telephone: (702) 794-4411
`Fax: (702) 794-4421
`creade@crdslaw.com
`Attorney for Plaintiff MARINA FRANCO MENDEZ
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`) )
`
`) Case No.:
`) Dept. No.:
`
`) )
`
`MARINA FRANCO MENDEZ,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`eSfC-~4FAnn
`
`10
`
`11
`
`14
`
`15
`
`) )
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff MARINA FRANCO MENDEZ,by and through their attorneys
`the law firm of Cory Reade Dows & Shafer and hereby pleads as follows:
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`Plaintiff MARINA FRANCO MENDEZ ("MENDEZ") is and wasat all times
`1.
`relevant hereto a resident of Clark County, Nevada.
`
`2.
`Plaintiff MENDEZ is and wasat all times relevant hereto one of the owners of
`certain residential real property known as 2125 Flower Avenue, North Las Vegas, Nevada
`89030, also known as Clark County Assessor’s Parcel Number 139-23-712-039 (“Subject
`Property”).
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case Number: A-23-877707-C
`
`

`

`Upon information and belief, Defendant PRIME EQUITY SOLUTIONS LLC
`3.
`(“PRIME”) is and was atall times relevant a Nevada Limited Liability Companyactually doing
`business in Clark County, Nevada.
`
`Upen information and belief, Defendant DAMASO ORTIZ-BATALLA
`4,
`(“ORTIZ”) is a resident of Clark County, Nevada responsible individually, jointly and severally
`for the fraudulent and criminal acts set forth herein,
`
`Plaintiff are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times relevant
`5.
`herein Defendants were authorized agents of each other and were acting with the knowledge,
`authorization and/or ratification of each of the other Defendants.
`
`6.
`Plaintiff are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times relevant
`herein Defendants were ostensible or apparent agents of each other and were acting with the
`knowledge, authorization and/orratification of the appearanceof said apparent agency for the
`acts and representations of each ofthe other Defendants.
`
`7.
`
`Defendants and each of them are and/or were atall times relevant hereto alter
`
`egos, shells instrumentalities of each other and shared an identity of interests such as to
`
`recognize any such fictions would be to countenancea fraud.
`
`Defendants and each of them had full knowledge of the acts of the other,
`8.
`engaged in a commonplan or knowledge of the actions of the others and were engaged in a
`civil conspiracy and should be heldjointly and severally liable for the acts ofthe others.
`
`9.
`Defendants and each of them are and/or were at all times relevant hereto the
`express, implied and/or ostensible agents of each other and were at all times acting within the
`course and scope ofsaid agency, and each Defendanthasratified the acts of each Defendant.
`
`10.
`The Court has personaljurisdiction over Defendants as Defendants were andare
`individuals and business entities actually doing business in Clark County, Nevada.
`11.
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 13.010(2) as the
`Property and Defendants’ acts and omission all are located in Clark County, Nevada,
`
`eeFSFSAAHUHBRBHOH
`
`BONmmmmet28khhERREBSREBRFERRE
`
`

`

`Venue is proper in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada
`12,
`due to the Property and actions being situated or having occurred in Clark County, Nevada.
`13.
`The true names and capacities of Defendants DOE 1
`through 100 and ROE
`BUSINESS ENTITIESI through C are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said persons by
`said fictitious names. Each ofthe parties designated as a DOEis responsible in some mannerfor
`the events and happenings described in the Compliant which proximately caused the damagesas
`alleged herein. Each of the parties designated a ROE BUSINESS ENTITYis responsible in
`some manner for the events and happenings described herein which proximately caused the
`damages to Plaintiff as alleged herein. Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amendthe Complaint
`to insert the true names and capacities of the DOES and ROE CORPORATIONSandstate
`
`appropriate charging allegations, when that information has been ascertained.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`14,
`
`Plaintiff MENDEZ married Defendant ORTIZ in Mexico as a certified civil
`
`marriage on April 7, 1994.
`
`Plaintiff MENDEZ matried Defendant ORTIZ in Mexico as a certified religious
`15.
`and church marriage on July 31, 1994,
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff MENDEZ and Defendant ORTIZ have remained married as husband and
`
`wife since April 1994 through thepresent.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff MENDEZ and Defendant ORTIZ, immigrated to the State of Nevada and
`
`purchased the Subject Property on or about November6, 2000.
`
`Plaintiff MENDEZ and Defendant ORTIZ jointly purchased the Subject Property
`18.
`with community funds and havetreated the Subject Property as community property pursuant to
`the laws ofthe State of Nevada since November 2000.
`
`Plaintiff MENDEZ has maintained all legal and equitable title to the Subject
`19,
`Property since November6, 2000 as community property and has undertaken all indicia, rights
`and obligations of ownership of the Subject Property since that date.
`
`ewfFSJHDthfkWYNe
`
`_. eo
`
`WW
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`20.
`
`As part of the purchase, Plaintiff MENDEZ put down monies and has paid the
`
`taxes and expenses for the Subject Property.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff MENDEZ has expended substantial sums for paying the ongoing
`
`financing and maintenance of the Subject Property.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff MENDEZ hasprotected and enhancedthe Property as well as making the
`
`Property the home and residence for MENDEZ andhis family.
`
`. 23,
`
`Defendant ORTIZ moved out of the Subject Property and has left Plaintiff
`
`MENDEZasthe sole party maintaining, paying for and owning the
`
`24h,
`
`Upon information and belief, on or about September8, 2023, Defendant PRIME
`
`and Defendant ORTIZ and any number of DOE and ROE Defendants conspired to steal the
`
`community property equity andtitle held by Plaintiff in the Subject Property.
`
`25.
`
`Had Defendant PRIME done any due diligence on the Subject Property,
`
`Defendant PRIME would have discovered that Plaintiff MENDEZ was occupying her home.
`
`26.
`
`Under Nevada law property acquired in the name of either spouse may be
`
`transmuted into community property.
`
`27.
`
`The Subject Property was both paid for and improved with the wages and
`
`interests if Plaintiff MENDEZ during marriage whichis community property
`
`28.
`
`Neither spouse may sell, convey or encumber the community real property unless
`
`both join in the execution of the deed or other instrument by which the real property is sold,
`
`conveyed or encumbered, and the deed or other instrament must be acknowledged by both
`
`spouses NRS 123.230,
`
`29.
`
`Defendant PRIME and Defendant ORTIZ recorded a Deed on September 8, 2023
`
`in Book 20230908 as Instrument 0000409 (“Subject Deed”) purporting to transfer title of the
`
`Subject Property from Defendant ORTIZ to Defendant PRIME,
`
`30.
`
`31,
`
`‘The Subject Deedis not signed or acknowledged by Plaintiff MENDEZ.
`
`The Subject Deed is void pursuant to Chapter 123 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.
`
`eo6SSHAUeeeBeRe
`
`beBDOOmmmetSaANDBAOmeBHUllUCDOUlUlUlUCNCOUlUlCUCOOUCUlUlUNlUlOmlCURUmllllleCS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`The Subject Deed purports to sell Plaintiff's community property interest for
`32,
`$115,000 when the fair market value of the Subject Property is more than $270,000 which makes
`the purported transfer void as to fraud.
`
`33,
`
`Plaintiff are entitied to have this Court enjoin any further actions until this Court
`
`can quiettitle and restore the rightful title back to Plaintiff
`
`Defendants and each of them committed and completed an unfathomable amount
`34.
`and degree of misrepresentations, fraudulent documentation and fraudulent actions in furtherance
`of defrauding Plaintiff in the ownership of the Properties, including having failed and refusedto
`expunge and removethe fraudulent deed from the chain oftitle for the Property.
`35.
`In addition to the direct damages suffered by Plaintiff in performing under the
`Agreements, Plaintiff has suffered severe and irreparable damages due to lost economic
`opportunity based upon Defendants’ fraudulent representations.
`
`Defendants defrauded Plaintiff in the recordation of a deed purporting to steal
`36.
`Plaintiffs community property interest in and to the Subject Property. and stealing Plaintiff's
`title, while acting with full knowledge aforethoughtthat problems existed with the Property and
`intent to attempt to steal the property through deception.
`
`Because Defendants’ conduct toward Plaintiff was fraudulent, malicious, and
`37,
`egregiously in bad faith, was conducted with a willful disregard for Plaintiff's rights, and
`subjected Plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship, Plaintiff further respectfully requests an award
`of punitive damages against Defendants in an amount appropriate to make Plaintiff whole in
`light of Defendants’ misconduct, to punish Defendants and to set an example thereof, in an
`amount at least treble the actual damages suffered by Plaintiff.
`
`As a result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff were forced to
`38,
`retain counsel andis entitled to recovertheir attorneys’ fees and costs ofsuit.
`
`eoFfSTDHUHRw
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Quiet Title)
`Plaintiff incorporates by referenceall of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
`39,
`set forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff possessed and possesses a valid interest in title to the Property andis the
`
`proper ownerof the Property.
`
`Plaintiff possessed and possesses a valid possessory interest in and to the Property
`41.
`and is the proper owner of the Property.
`
`42.
`
`Defendants claim an adverseinterest in real property owned by Plaintiff and have
`
`fraudulently marred Plaintiff's title interests, that such claim is without right, and that Defendant
`
`PRIME hasnoestate, title, or interest in said property, that Defendants have asserted theirtitle
`
`arises from a Deed allegedly signed by MENDEZ while MENDEZ wasnot even in the United
`
`States living at a residence which has nothing to do with Plaintiff.
`
`43.
`
`As a result of the adverse claim, it has become necessary for the Court to declare
`
`and quiet title in the Property.
`
`it has become necessary for Plaintiff to bring this Complaint, and
`Further,
`44.
`therefore Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attomey's fees and costs for having to
`undertake this action.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Injunctive Relief)
`Plaintiff incorporates by referenceall of the foregoing paragraphsas though fully
`45.
`set forth herein,
`
`46.
`
`Defendants’ acts as described herein are wrongful and of a continuing nature for
`
`which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff possesses a reasonable likelihood of success on the merit of their claims
`
`against Defendants by virtue of their wrongfulactions.
`
`Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to fraudulently convert
`48.
`the Subject Property and to cast Plaintiff into irreparable financial destruction, which will result
`
`eoC6~~DHFFBRWYee
`
`RommmmeteoSNDRweBeBWBeSeSsSBSSBAHKhhhlCUS
`
`

`

`in irreparable harm to Plaintiff becauseit will not only deprive Plaintiff of access to Plaintiff own
`
`Property and interests but will result in the eviction and loss of the Property due to Defendants’
`
`fraudulent actions, thus posing a real threat and injury to Plaintiff's good and marketabletitle and
`
`credit standing, as well as pecuniary interests.
`
`49.
`
`The potential damages proximately caused by these deprivatio