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.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A v. Ochoa-Delgado

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 27, 2018

HSBC BANK USA, N.A, Plaintiffs,
v.
EDUBIJES OCHOA-DELGADO, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, N.A.'s (“HSBC”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 38). Defendant 4918 Athens Bay Trust, (“ABT”) filed a response (ECF No. 45), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 47).

         Also before the court is defendant's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 41). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 44), to which defendant replied (ECF No. 46).

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 4918 Athens Bay Place, North Las Vegas, Nevada, 89031 (the “property”). On March 5, 1999, defendant Edubijes Ochoa-Delgado (“Ochoa”) obtained a loan from non-party Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) to purchase the property. (ECF No. 1).

         On July 12, 2005, Ochoa secured a new loan from MLSG, Inc., for $154, 700. Id. The loan was secured by a deed of trust recorded on July 20, 2005 as a first lien secured against the property. Id. The deed of trust named MERS as the beneficiary and Southwest Title as the trustee. Id.

         On January 21, 2009, MERS executed an assignment of the deed of trust to plaintiff, which was recorded on February 4, 2009. Id.; (ECF No. 39-3). On April 21, 2010, MERS executed a second assignment of deed of trust to plaintiff, which was recorded on April 29, 2010. (ECF No. 1).

         Ochoa became delinquent on his loan obligations. On December 24, 2009, plaintiff, through its foreclosure agent and trustee, recorded a notice of default. Id.; (ECF No. 39-4).

         Ochoa also became delinquent on his HOA obligations. On August 27, 2010, defendant Absolute Collection Services (“ACS”), acting on behalf of the HOA, recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $1, 122.40. (ECF No. 39-5). On November 15, 2010, ACS recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $2, 026.40. (ECF No. 39-6).

         On September 20, 2012, ACS recorded a third notice of sale, [1] stating an amount due of $4, 734.45 and an anticipated sale date of November 6, 2012. (ECF No. 39-7).

         On November 6, 2012 the HOA foreclosed on the property. (ECF No. 1). ABT purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $5, 900. Id. A foreclosure deed in favor of ABT was recorded on November 7, 2012. Id.

         On May 24, 2016, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint, alleging four causes of action: quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; breach of NRS 116.1113 against the HOA and ACS; wrongful foreclosure against the HOA and ACS; and unjust enrichment against the HOA and ACS. (ECF No. 1).

         In the instant motions, plaintiff and defendant ABT move for summary judgment in their favor. (ECF Nos. 38, 41).

         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 ...


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.