United States District Court, D. Nevada
Cases: 3:16-cv-00483-MMD-WGC 3:16-cv-00498-MMD-WGC
before this court is Federal National Mortgage Association
(“Fannie Mae”) and Federal Housing Finance
Agency's (“FHFA”) second motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 89). Plaintiff LN Management LLC Series
7937 Sierra RIM (“LN”) filed a response (ECF No.
92), and Fannie Mae and FHFA replied (ECF No. 98).
October 22, 2013, defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. filed a timely
petition for removal in this court. (ECF No. 1). The
underlying complaint sought to quiet title, requesting
declaratory relief in relation to the foreclosure sale of the
real estate at 7937 Sierra Rim Dr., Las Vegas, Nevada. (ECF
5, 2015, Magistrate Judge Leen granted a stipulation to allow
Fannie Mae and its conservator, FHFA, to intervene in this
case. (ECF No. 17). On July 14, 2015, Fannie Mae submitted
its answer to the complaint and asserted a claim of quiet
title against plaintiff and declaratory judgment against all
parties. (ECF No. 41). Finally, on October 3, 2016, FHFA and
Fannie Mae filed the instant motion. (ECF No. 89).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow 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 dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to 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 unsupported claims . . . .” Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323- 24 (1986).
purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should
be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v.
Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).
However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the
non-moving party must “set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id.
determining summary judgment, the court applies a
burden-shifting analysis. “When the party moving for
summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it
must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a
directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at
trial.” C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden
Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000).
Moreover, “[i]n such a case, the moving party has the
initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue
of fact on each issue material to its case.”
contrast, when the non-moving party bears the burden of
proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its
burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an
essential element of the non-moving party's case; or (2)
by demonstrating that the non-moving party failed to make a
showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that
party's case on which that party will bear the burden of
proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at
323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden,
summary judgment must be denied and the court need not
consider the non-moving party's evidence. See Adickes
v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159- 60 (1970).
moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine
issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
(1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the
opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact
conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the
claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge
to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth
at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec.
Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.
1987). . . .
instant motion, FHFA argues that § 4617(j)(3) of the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
(“HERA”) preempts state law and bars the
foreclosure of the underlying property without FHFA's
consent. (ECF No. 89); see also 12 U.S.C. §
4617(j). Thus, Fannie Mae and FHFA posit that they are
entitled to summary judgment because the foreclosure sale
could not disrupt Fannie Mae's property interest without
FHFA's consent. (ECF No. 89).
Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 116.3116, a
homeowner's association (“HOA”) has a lien on
a property for assessments levied against that property and
such liens are prior to all other liens and encumbrances,
subject to exceptions. Nev. Rev. Stat. 116.3116(1)-(2). In
SFR Investments Pool 1, the Nevada Supreme Court
found that a HOA's foreclosure ...