United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. MAHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's
(“SFR”) motion to certify question of law to the
Nevada Supreme Court. (ECF No. 63). Plaintiff Bank of
America, N.A. (“BANA”) filed a response (ECF No.
67), to which SFR replied (ECF No. 68).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 4129
Thomas Patrick Avenue, North Las Vegas, Nevada (the
27, 2008, George and Juanita Bennett obtained a loan from CTX
Mortgage Company, LLC in the amount of $215, 761.00, which
was secured by a deed of trust recorded on May 29, 2008. (ECF
No. 1). The Federal Housing Administration
(“FHA”) insured the deed of trust. (ECF No. 1).
The deed of trust was assigned to BANA. (ECF No. 1).
March 9, 2010, Alessi & Koenig, LLC
(“A&K”), acting on behalf of the Mesa Verde
homeowners' association (the “HOA”), recorded
a notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due
of $920.00. (ECF No. 1). On August 5, 2010, A&K recorded
a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the
delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $5,
380.00. (ECF No. 1).
October 13, 2011, A&K recorded another notice of
delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $3,
545.00 and scheduling the sale for November 16, 2011. (ECF
No. 1). On August 2, 2012, A&K recorded a second notice
of trustee's sale, scheduling the foreclosure sale for
September 5, 2012, and stating an amount due of $3, 545.00.
(ECF No. 1). On June 3, 2013, A&K recorded a third notice
of trustee's sale, scheduling the sale for July 3, 2013
and stating an amount due of $7, 686.26. (ECF No. 1).
August 7, 2013, SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC
(“SFR”) purchased the property for $20, 000.00.
(ECF No. 1). The trustee's deed upon sale was recorded
August 13, 2013. (ECF No. 1).
underlying complaint, BANA alleges four claims of relief: (1)
quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; (2)
breach of NRS 116.1113 against A&K and the HOA; (3)
wrongful foreclosure against A&K and the HOA; and (4)
injunctive relief against SFR. (ECF No. 1). The court
dismissed claims (2) through (4) on October 11, 2016. (ECF
instant motion, SFR moves to certify a question of law to the
Nevada Supreme Court. (ECF No. 63).
Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that the Supreme
Court of Nevada has the power to answer “questions of
[state] law . . . which may be determinative of the cause
then pending in the certifying court and as to which it
appears to the certifying court there is no controlling
precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court of
[Nevada].” Nev. R. App. P. 5(a).
Nevada Supreme Court “may answer questions of law
certified  by a federal court when (1) [the] answers to the
certified questions may be determinative of part of the
federal case, (2) there is no clearly controlling Nevada
precedent, and (3) the answers to the certified questions
will help settle important questions of law. See,
e.g., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Tr. of Const.
Indus., 208 P.3d 884, 888 (Nev. 2009).
the question does not impact the merits of a claim pending
before the certifying court, the question should not be
certified to the Supreme Court. See Nev. R. App. P.
5(a) (requiring that certified question be
“determinative”); see also Volvo Cars of N.
Am., Inc. v. Ricci, 137 P.2d 1161, 1164 (Nev. 2006)
(declining to answer certified questions where “answers
to the questions posed  would not ‘be
determinative' of any part of the case”).
“The certification procedure is reserved for state law
questions that present significant issues, including those