United States District Court, D. Nevada
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.
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).
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).
deed of trust was assigned to BNYM via a corporate assignment
of deed of trust recorded September 5, 2013. (ECF No. 1).
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).
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).
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).
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 ...