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.

MCM Capital Partners, LLC v. Saricoy Bay LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 20, 2017

MCM CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
SARICOY BAY LLC SERIES 6684 CORONADO CREST, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently 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).

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 6684 Coronado Crest Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89139 (“the property”). (ECF No. 70 at 4).

         On 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.).

         On 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 (id.).

         The 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).

         Then, 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).

         On May 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.).

         On July 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).

         In the instant filing, MCM renews its motion for summary judgment regarding its quiet title claim. (ECF No. 70).

         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 versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987).

         In 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.

         At 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. at 249-50.

         III. Discussion

         A. 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 ...


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.