United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff MCM Capital Partners, LLC's
(“MCM”) renewed motion for summary judgment. (ECF
No. 70). Defendants Red Rock Financial Services (“Red
Rock”), Saticoy Bay LLC Series 6684 Coronado Crest
(“Saticoy Bay”), and Coronado Ranch Landscape
Maintenance Corporation (“Coronado Ranch”) filed
responses. (ECF Nos. 72-74). Defendant Coronado Ranch joined
the response of Red Rock. (ECF No. 75). MCM submitted a
reply. (ECF No. 77).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 6684
Coronado Crest Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89139 (“the
property”). (ECF No. 70 at 4).
August 22, 2006, Joseph L. Stimach and Sharon L. Stimach
obtained a loan from Republic Mortgage, LLC in the amount of
$329, 000, which was secured by a deed of trust and recorded
on August 30, 2006. (Id.).
April 20, 2010, defendant Red Rock, acting on behalf of the
HOA, Coronado Ranch, recorded a notice of delinquent
assessment lien, stating an amount due of $791.12.
(Id. at 5). On July 20, 2010, Red Rock recorded a
notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the
delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $1,
768.77. (Id.). MCM did not receive either notice as
it did not yet have a recorded interest. See
deed of trust was assigned to BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, on
September 20, 2010, and then to MCM via an assignment of the
deed of trust, which MCM recorded on February 19, 2015. (ECF
No. 17 at 3).
on March 30, 2015, Red Rock recorded a notice of foreclosure
sale, stating an amount due of $4, 331.70 and scheduling the
sale for May 11, 2015. (Id. at 3-4). Red Rock mailed
a copy of the notice to MCM via first class mail. (ECF No.
73-9 at 17-19).
11, 2015, Red Rock conducted the foreclosure sale, and
defendant Saticoy Bay purchased the property for $21, 000.
(ECF No. 17 at 4). A foreclosure deed in favor of Saticoy Bay
was recorded on June 15, 2015. (Id.).
7, 2015, MCM filed the operative complaint, alleging two
claims for relief: (1) quiet title judgment against
defendants; and (2) unjust enrichment against Saticoy Bay.
(Id. at 5- 6).
instant filing, MCM renews its motion for summary judgment
regarding its quiet title claim. (ECF No. 70).
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.
Claim (2), unjust enrichment
As an initial matter, MCM's claim (2) for unjust
enrichment is dismissed without prejudice for failure to
mediate pursuant to NRS 38.310. See, e.g., Nev. Rev.
Stat. § 38.310(1); McKnight Family, L.L.P. v. Adept
Mgmt., 310 P.3d 555 (Nev. 2013). Subsection (1) of NRS
38.310 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
No civil action based upon a claim relating to [t]he
interpretation, application or enforcement of any
covenants, conditions or restrictions applicable to
residential property . . . or [t]he procedures used for
increasing, decreasing or imposing additional assessments
upon residential property, may be commenced in any court in