United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 1547
Frisco Peak's (“Saticoy”) motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.
(“BANA”) filed a response (ECF No. 46), to which
Saticoy replied (ECF No. 48).
before the court is BANA's motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 44). Saticoy filed a response (ECF No. 47), to which
BANA replied (ECF No. 49).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 1547
Frisco Peak Dr., # 215, Henderson, NV 89014 (the
“property”). On October 23, 2009, Bess Bernard
obtained a loan in the amount of $73, 641.00 to purchase the
property, which was secured by a deed of trust recorded on
October 27, 2009. (ECF No. 1 at 4).
December 6, 2012, defendant Nevada Association Services, Inc.
(“NAS”), acting on behalf of defendant Desert
Linn Condominiums (the “HOA”), recorded a notice
of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $2,
052.58. (ECF No. 1 at 4). On March 27, 2013, NAS recorded a
notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the
delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $3,
339.32. (ECF No. 1 at 4).
20, 2013, BANA requested a ledger from the HOA/NAS
identifying the superpriority amount allegedly owed to the
HOA. (ECF No. 1 at 5). The HOA/NAS allegedly refused to
provide a ledger. (ECF No. 1 at 5). BANA calculated the
superpriority amount to be $1, 170.00 and tendered that
amount to NAS on June 13, 2013, which NAS allegedly refused.
(ECF No. 1 at 6).
October 22, 2013, NAS recorded a notice of trustee's
sale, stating an amount due of $5, 536.20. (ECF No. 42-5).
On November 15, 2013, Saticoy purchased the property at the
foreclosure sale for $11, 200.00. (ECF No. 1 at 6). A
trustee's deed upon sale in favor of Saticoy was recorded
on November 22, 2013. (ECF No. 1 at 6).
deed of trust was assigned to BANA via an assignment of deed
of trust recorded on December 30, 2015. (ECF No. 1 at 4).
March 18, 2016, BANA filed the underlying complaint, alleging
four causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment
against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against
NAS and the HOA; (3) wrongful foreclosure against NAS and the
HOA; and (4) injunctive relief against Saticoy. (ECF No. 1).
April 8, 2016, Saticoy filed an answer and counterclaim
against BANA for quiet title and declaratory relief. (ECF No.
instant motions, Saticoy and BANA move for summary judgment.
(ECF Nos. 42, 44). The court will address each as it sees
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 versions of the truth
at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec.
Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir.
other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary
judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are
unsupported by factual data. See Taylor v. List, 880
F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must
go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and
set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that
shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex, 477
U.S. at 324.
summary judgment, a court's function is not to weigh the
evidence and determine the truth, but to determine whether
there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and
all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his
favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the
nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly
probative, summary judgment may be granted. See Id.
initial matter, the court dismisses, without prejudice,
claims (2) through (4) of BANA's complaint. Claims (2)
and (3) are dismissed without prejudice for failure to
mediate pursuant to NRS 38.330. See, e.g., Nev. Rev.
Stat. § 38.330(1); McKnight Family, L.L.P. v. Adept
Mgmt., 310 P.3d 555 (Nev. 2013). Count (4) is dismissed
without prejudice because the court follows the well-settled
rule in that a claim for “injunctive relief”
standing alone is not a cause of action. See, e.g.,
In re Wal-Mart Wage & Hour Emp't Practices
Litig., 490 F.Supp.2d 1091, 1130 (D. Nev. 2007);
Tillman v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., No. 2:12-CV-346
JCM RJJ, 2012 WL 1279939, at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 13, 2012)
(finding that “injunctive relief is a remedy, not an
independent cause of action”); Jensen v. Quality
Loan Serv. Corp., 702 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1201 (E.D. Cal.
2010) (“A request for injunctive relief by itself does
not state a cause of action.”).
Motions for ...