Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Romwright Properties LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 5, 2017

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Plaintiffs,
v.
ROMWRIGHT PROPERTIES LLC, et al., Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon's (“BNYM”) motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 13). Defendant Romewright Properties LLC (“RP”) (ECF No. 23) and defendant Regent at Town Centre Homeowners' Association (the “HOA”) (ECF No. 24) filed responses, to which BNYM replied (ECF No. 27).

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 6955 North Durango Drive, Unit #2092, Las Vegas, NV 89149 (the “property”). Zachary Lovenson obtained a loan in the amount of $106, 050.00 to purchase the property, which was secured by a deed of trust recorded on September 2, 2005. (ECF No. 1).

         On December 13, 2011, defendant Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”), acting on behalf of the HOA, recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien. (ECF No. 1). On January 1, 2012, NAS recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien. (ECF No. 1).

         The deed of trust was assigned to BNYM via a corporate assignment of deed of trust recorded September 5, 2013. (ECF No. 1).

         On August 26, 2014, NAS recorded a notice of trustee's sale on the HOA's lien. (ECF No. 1). On September 19, 2014, defendants RP and Dry Dog LLC (“DD”) purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $59, 000.00. (ECF No. 1). A trustee's deed upon sale in favor of RP and DD was recorded on September 22, 2014. (ECF No. 1).

         On January 12, 2017, BNYM filed the underlying complaint, alleging two causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; and (2) conversion against NAS and the HOA. (ECF No. 1).

         In the instant motion, BNYM moves for partial summary judgment on its quiet title claim pursuant to Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, No. 16-1208, 2017 WL 1300223 (U.S. June 26, 2017) (“Bourne Valley”). (ECF No. 13).

         II. Legal Standard

         The 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).

         For 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.

         In 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).

         By 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).

         If the 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.