United States District Court, D. Nevada
For CXA-10 Corporation, a Texas Corporation, Plaintiff: Eric S Pezold, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Costa Mesa, CA; Michael D Stein, LEAD ATTORNEY, Brian R. Reeve, Snell & Wilmer, Las Vegas, NV; Laura E. Browning, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Las Vegas, NV.
For Barry A Ford, an individual, Defendant: Timothy P Thomas, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Timothy P. Thomas, LLC, Las Vegas, NV.
James C. Mahan, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Presently before the court is defendant Barry A. Ford's (hereinafter " defendant") motion for summary judgment on the determination of any deficiency. (Doc. # 88). Plaintiff CXA-10 Corporation (hereinafter " plaintiff") filed an opposition (doc. # 93), and defendant filed a reply, (doc. # 94).
This matter arises out of a loan transaction between non-party Community Bank of Nevada (hereinafter " Community Bank"), which is the original lender, and Sunset Partners, LLC (hereinafter " Sunset"), of which defendant is the manager.
On February 2, 2004, Community Bank agreed to loan Sunset $2, 650, 000. In return, Sunset granted Community Bank a security interest in real property commonly known as 1351 West Sunset Road, Henderson, Nevada 89014 (hereinafter " the property").
That same day, the defendant executed a commercial guaranty whereby he guaranteed to repay the amounts due by Sunset under the note plus interest to Community Bank.
Community bank subsequently entered into a participation agreement with First National Bank of Layton (hereinafter " First National"). Through the participation agreement, First National purchased a 50% participation interest in the loan.
Community Bank subsequently failed, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter " FDIC") was named as receiver on August 14, 2009. Shortly thereafter, non-party Beal Bank USA (hereinafter " Beal") purchased Community Bank's 50% interest from the FDIC.
On January 27, 2012, Beal assigned its 50% interest in the loan and rights to plaintiff, which is its associated holding company. The consideration paid by plaintiff for the 50% interest was $671, 068.36. On January 31, 2012, a trustee's sale of the property was held. Plaintiff was the successful bidder with a bid of $1, 340, 000.00. At the time of the trustee's sale, plaintiff held a 50% interest in the loan and First National held the other 50%. The remaining unpaid balance due and owing under the loan documents was $2, 579, 022.24 and the fair market value of the property was $1, 435, 000. On September 6, 2012, plaintiff purchased First National's interest for $1, 000, 000.00.
Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of guaranty and requested a deficiency judgment. (Doc. # 1). On May 3, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 67). This court found the defendant responsible for the deficiency amount and granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 79).
II. Legal Standard
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary judgment when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that " there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose of summary judgment is " to isolate and dispose of factually ...