United States District Court, D. Nevada
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).
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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).
September 20, 2012, ACS recorded a third notice of sale,
stating an amount due of $4, 734.45 and an anticipated sale
date of November 6, 2012. (ECF No. 39-7).
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.
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).
instant motions, plaintiff and defendant ABT move for summary
judgment in their favor. (ECF Nos. 38, 41).
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