United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff Christiana Trust, a division of
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual
capacity but as trustee of ARLP Trust 2's
(“Christiana Trust”) motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 49). Defendants Mandolin Homeowners Association (the
“HOA”) (ECF No. 59) and SFR Investments Pool 1,
LLC (“SFR”) (ECF No. 60) filed their responses,
to which Christiana Trust replied (ECF Nos. 62, 64).
before the court is SFR's motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 51). The HOA (ECF No. 57) and Christiana Trust (ECF
No. 58) filed responses, to which SFR replied (ECF No. 66).
before the court is the HOA's motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 52). Christiana Trust filed a response
(ECF No. 56), to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 65).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 7604
Brisa Del Mar Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89179 (the
April 11, 2007, the Flaherty Trust obtained a loan from Bank
of America, N.A. (“BANA”) in the amount of $219,
173.00 to purchase the property, which was secured by a deed
of trust recorded on April 12, 2007. (ECF No. 1 at 4-5).
February 18, 2011, defendant Nevada Association Services,
Inc. (“NAS”), acting on behalf of the HOA,
recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an
amount due of $1, 036.00. (ECF No. 1 at 5). On April 11,
2011, NAS recorded a notice of default and election to sell
to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount
due of $2, 088.90. (ECF No. 1 at 6). On December 17, 2012,
NAS recorded a notice of trustee's sale, stating an
amount due of $6, 389.57. (ECF No. 1 at 6-7).
January 11, 2013, SFR purchased the property at the
foreclosure sale for $9, 000.00. (ECF No. 1 at 7). A
trustee's deed upon sale in favor of SFR was recorded on
September 9, 2013. (ECF No. 1 at 6).
the foreclosure sale extinguished the deed of trust, it was
assigned to Christiana Trust via an assignment of deed of
trust recorded May 23, 2014. (ECF No. 1 at 5).
2, 2016, Christiana Trust filed the underlying complaint
against SFR, the HOA, NAS, and Michael Flaherty as trustee of
the Andrew M. Flaherty Living Trust dated August 12, 1994,
alleging four causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory
judgment against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113
against NAS and the HOA; (3) wrongful foreclosure against NAS
and the HOA; and (4) unjust enrichment against SFR, the HOA,
and NAS. (ECF No. 1).
February 17, 2017, this court dismissed Christiana
Trust's second and third causes of action. (ECF No. 41).
Christiana Trust voluntarily withdrew its fourth cause of
action, which was also dismissed on February 17, 2017. (ECF
No. 41). Thus, Christiana Trust's quiet title/declaratory
relief claim remains.
same date, SFR filed a counter/crossclaim for quiet title and
injunctive relief. (ECF No. 42).
instant motions, Christiana Trust, SFR, and the HOA all move
for summary judgment in their favor. (ECF Nos. 49, 51, 52).
The court will address each as it sees fit.
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.