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.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Azure Manor/Rancho De Paz Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 19, 2018

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
AZURE MANOR/RANCHO DEL PAZ HOMEOWNERSASSOCIATION; SFR INVESTMENT POOL 1, LLC; and ALESSI & KOENIG, LLC, Defendants.

          ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF NO. 51)

          GEORGE FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter/Cross-Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 51), filed on February 23, 2018. Defendant/Counter/Cross-Claimant SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC filed its Opposition (ECF No. 59) on March 9, 2018, and Plaintiff filed its Reply (ECF No. 61) on March 15, 2018. The Court determines that this motion can be resolved without the need for oral argument and the hearing scheduled for March 22, 2018 at 9:30 A.M. is therefore vacated.

         BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

         This case is one of several between Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Bank of America, N.A. and Defendant/Counterclaimant SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC arising out of the SFR's purchase of residential real property that was previously sold pursuant to the non-judicial foreclosure of a homeowners' association assessment lien. The issue in these cases is whether the foreclosure sale had the legal effect of extinguishing a senior deed of trust on the property securing a promissory note for the purchase of the property.

         Defendant SFR has noticed the deposition of Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in several of these cases. The topics listed in the deposition notices are identical or substantially identical. The parties have met, conferred and reached agreement regarding the majority of topics that will be inquired into at the depositions and to which Plaintiff's designee must be prepared to testify. The parties have not been able to agree on the following topics:

5. Any and all damages You allege You suffered as a result of the Association foreclosure and/or as a consequence of any claim You made against SFR and/or the Association.
8. All facts and circumstances surrounding Your acquisition of Your interest in the Deed of Trust and/or underlying promissory note, including, but not limited to:
a. the amount You paid for Your interest in the Deed of Trust;
b. Your knowledge of the MERS milestones for the Deed of Trust;
c. Your knowledge of any purchase agreement applicable to the Deed of Trust between you and the entity from which You purchased Your interest in the loan underlying the Deed of Trust; and
d. Your knowledge of any pooling and servicing agreement applicable to the Deed of Trust.
9. Your knowledge regarding creation, execution and recording of the assignments of the Deed of Trust, including Your knowledge of any power of attorney referenced or relied upon in creation of said assignments.

Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 51), Exhibit A-1.

         In Bank of America, N.A. v. Lake Mead Court Homeowners' Association, SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00504-GMN-NJK, the Plaintiff filed substantially the same motion, SFR filed substantially the same opposition and Plaintiff filed substantially the same reply (See Id. ECF Nos. 70, 71 and 75).[1] On March 14, 2018, Judge Koppe granted Plaintiff's motion for protective order with respect to topics 5, 8 and 9. This Court ...


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.