United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.'s
(“BANA”) motion for partial summary judgment as
to the merits of this case. (ECF No. 39). BANA subsequently
filed an errata to that motion. (ECF No. 40). Defendants
Pacific Legends Green Valley Owners' Association (the
“HOA”) and BFP Investments 3, LLC
(“BFP”) filed responses (ECF Nos. 42, 43), and
BANA filed both a reply (ECF No. 47) and an amended reply
(ECF No. 48).
before the court is BFP's motion for partial summary
judgment regarding the applicability of the return doctrine
in this case. (ECF No. 31). BANA filed a response (ECF No.
36), and BFP filed a reply (ECF No. 38).
this court also considers BFP's motion to certify a
question of law. (ECF No. 28). BANA has filed a response (ECF
No. 32), and BFP has filed a reply (ECF No. 33).
instant litigation involves the parties' competing
interests in the real estate at 75 N. Valle Verde Drive
#1025, Henderson, Nevada 89074. (ECF No. 1). BANA received
its purported interest in the property via an October 5,
2011, assignment of deed of trust. (ECF No. 40-1).
January 3, 2012, the HOA, through Nevada Association
Services, Inc. (“NAS”) recorded a notice of
delinquent assessment lien, indicating an amount due of
$758.78. (ECF No. 43-1).
February 24, 2012, NAS recorded a notice of default and
election to sell, indicating an amount due under the lien of
$3, 042.18. (ECF No. 40-1).
4, 2014, NAS recorded a notice of foreclosure sale on the
property, identifying a sum due of $10, 487.03. (ECF No. 43-1).
August 25, 2014, NAS recorded a foreclosure deed on the
property, which allegedly conveyed title to BFP after
auction. (Id.); see also (ECF No. 1).
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).
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.
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.”
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 ...