United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff CitiMortgage, Inc.'s
(“CMI”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.
Defendant Marshall Family Trust (“MFT”) filed a
response (ECF No. 27), to which CMI replied (ECF No. 28).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 5143
Marshall Island Court, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89031 (the
“property”). (ECF No. 1 at 2).
5, 2006, Lakeshia Spencer obtained a loan from Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc. in the amount of $164, 000.00, which was
secured by a deed of trust recorded on May 15, 2006. (ECF No.
1 at 3). On December 13, 2011, the deed of trust was assigned
to CMI via an assignment of deed of trust. (ECF No. 1 at 3).
October 7, 2011, defendant Absolute Collection Services, LLC
(“ACS”), acting on behalf of Tierra De Las Palmas
Owners Association (the “HOA”), recorded a notice
of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of
$816.71. (ECF No. 1). On February 10, 2012, ACS recorded a
notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the
delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $1,
696.98. (ECF No. 1).
February 17, 2012, CMI requested a ledger from the HOA
through its agent ACS, identifying the super-priority amount
allegedly owed, but the HOA refused to respond. (ECF No. 1).
December 7, 2012, ACS recorded a notice of trustee's
sale, stating an amount due of $3, 315.30. (ECF No. 1). On
May 14, 2013, the HOA foreclosed on the property. (ECF No.
1). Defendant MFT purchased the property for $6, 500.00. (ECF
No. 1). A trustee's deed in favor of MFT was recorded May
16, 2013. (ECF No. 1).
March 18, 2016, CMI filed the underlying complaint, alleging
four claims of relief: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment
against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against
the HOA and the ACS; (3) wrongful foreclosure against the HOA
and ACS; and (4) injunctive relief against MFT. (ECF No. 1).
The court later dismissed claims (2) through (4). (ECF No.
instant motion, CMI moves for summary judgment in its favor
on the quiet title claim. (ECF No. 24).
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 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 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
nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id.
determining summary judgment, a court applies a
burden-shifting analysis. The moving party must first satisfy
its initial burden. “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. In 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.” C.A.R. Transp.
Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480
(9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
contrast, when the nonmoving 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 nonmoving 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 nonmoving 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 ...