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.

U.S. Bank, National Association v. Mission Pointe Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 18, 2017

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs,
v.
MISSION POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is plaintiff U.S. Bank, National Association's (the “Bank”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 22). Defendant Mission Pointe Homeowners Association (the “HOA”) filed a response to the motion outside of the 21-day deadline for submission of the same. See LR 7-2(b); see also (ECF No. 23). Therefore, defendant's response will be stricken, but the lack of opposition to a motion for summary judgment is not sufficient for the automatic success of that motion. (ECF No. 23); see also LR 7-2(d).

         I. Introduction

         This action involves the nonjudicial foreclosure of the real property at 10245 S. Maryland Parkway Unit 2194, Las Vegas, Nevada. (ECF No. 1).

         The Bank alleges three claims against the HOA: (1) declaratory relief to quiet title; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) injunctive relief. (Id.).

         The Bank further admits in its motion that, although the contested foreclosure sale occurred on October 7, 2011, it did not receive its purported interest in the property until Nationstar Mortgage LLC assigned to it the senior deed of trust on May 1, 2014. (ECF No. 22); see also (ECF Nos. 22-3, 22-7).

         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 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 non-moving party must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id.

         In 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.” Id.

         By 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).

         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 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).

         III. Discussion

         To show standing to bring a claim, a complaint must show the satisfaction of three prongs:

(1) a party must have suffered an “injury in fact, ” which is an actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected, concrete, and particularized interest, (2) “there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, ” and (3) it must be ...

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.