United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant/third-party plaintiff
Copperhead Ranch Street and Landscape Maintenance
Corporation's (the “HOA”) motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 35). Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC
(“SFR”) (ECF No. 37) and plaintiff Bank of New
York Mellon (“BNYM”) (ECF No. 38) filed
responses, to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 41).
before the court is BNYM's motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 44). SFR and the HOA responded (ECF No. 54), to
which BNYM replied (ECF No. 60).
before the court is SFR's motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 46). The HOA joined (ECF No. 48) and BNYM responded
(ECF No. 53), to which SFR replied (ECF No. 61). The HOA
joined SFR's reply. (ECF No. 62).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 5837
Lenapee Court, Las Vegas, NV 89113 (the
“property”). On April 14, 2004, Serhiy and
Tetyana But executed a note and first deed of trust for the
purchase of the property. (ECF No. 1).
deed of trust secured a loan in the amount of $232, 000.00
and identified GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. as the
lender and beneficiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems Inc. (“MERS”) as the nominee beneficiary,
and Marin Conveyancing Corp. as the trustee. (ECF No. 1).
August 30, 2011, MERS recorded a corporate assignment of deed
of trust assigning all beneficial interest in the deed of
trust to Bank of America, N.A. (ECF No. 1).
April 30, 2012, notice of delinquent assessment was recorded
against the property on behalf of the HOA. (ECF No. 1). On
June 21, 2012, a notice of default and election to sell to
under homeowners association lien was recorded against the
property on behalf of the HOA, stating that the total amount
due as of June 20, 2012 was $1, 860.00. (ECF No. 1).
October 5, 2012, a notice of trustee's sale was recorded
against the property on behalf of the HOA, stating an amount
due of $3, 710.00. (ECF No. 1). On March 12, 2013, pursuant
to the notice of trustee's sale, a non-judicial
foreclosure sale occurred, whereby SFR acquired interest in
the property for $11, 100.00. (ECF No. 1).
April 12, 2014, Bank of America, N.A. recorded a corporate
assignment of deed of trust assigning all beneficial interest
in the deed of trust to BNYM. (ECF No. 1).
January 30, 2017, BNYM filed the underlying complaint,
alleging four causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory
relief against the HOA and SFR; (2) declaratory relief under
the 5th and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution
against the HOA and SFR; (3) quiet title under the 5th and
14th amendments of the United States Constitution against
SFR; (4) permanent and preliminary injunction against SFR;
and (5) unjust enrichment against SFR. (ECF No. 1).
15, 2017, SFR filed a counterclaim against BNYM for quiet
title and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 14).
instant motions, the HOA and SFR move for summary judgment
against BNYM. (ECF No. 35, 46). BNYM also moves for summary
judgment against the HOA and SFR. (ECF No. 44).
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.
instant motion, the HOA argues that BNYM failed to
sufficiently state a quiet title claim. (ECF No. 35). The HOA
further contends that BNYM's quiet title claim fails
because its is time barred. (ECF No. 35).
quiet title claim of BNYM's complaint alleges that the
foreclosure sale was wrongful and did not extinguish the deed
of trust. (ECF No. 1). BNYM seeks declaratory relief that the
HOA foreclosure sale conducted under NRS § 116.3116 did
not extinguish the deed of trust because “the HOA
failed to provide ...