United States District Court, D. Nevada
RLP-VERVAIN COURT, LLC, a Nevada series limited liability company of the container RED LIZARD PRODUCTIONS, LLC under NRS § 86.296, Plaintiff,
DHI MORTGAGE COMPANY, LTD., a Texas limited partnership; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national association; FORT APACHE SQUARE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Nevada domestic nonprofit corporation; MTC FINANCIAL INC., a California corporation; REPUBLIC SILVER STATE DISPOSAL, INC., a Nevada corporation; JOSEPH A. NEWELL, an individual; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants.
M. Navarro, United States District Court Chief Judge
before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.
77), filed by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells
Fargo”). Plaintiff RLP-Vervain Court, LLC
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 80), and
Wells Fargo filed a Reply, (ECF No. 86).
pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment,
(ECF No. 78), filed by Plaintiff. Wells Fargo filed a
Response, (ECF No. 85), and Plaintiff failed to file a reply.
For the reasons set forth herein, Wells Fargo's Motion is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff's motion is
present action arises from the non-judicial foreclosure of
the real property located at 9253 Vervain Court, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89149 (“the Property”). On April 26, 2007,
Defendant Joseph A. Newell obtained a loan in the amount of
$193, 848.00 from DHI Mortgage Company, Ltd.
(“Lender”), and Mortgage Electronic Registration
System (“MERS”) that was secured by a Deed of
Trust on the Property. (Deed of Trust, Ex. 2 to Wells
Fargo's Mot. for Summ. J. (“MSJ”), ECF No.
77-2). Federal Housing Finance Agency
(“Freddie Mac”) purchased the loan on June 12,
2007, and has owned it ever since. (See Fed. Home
Loan Mort. Corp. Decl., Ex. 3 to Wells Fargo's MSJ ¶
5, ECF No. 77-3).
March 9, 2012, MERS, as nominee for Lender's successors
and assigns, assigned the Deed of Trust to Wells Fargo. (Ex.
4 to Wells Fargo's MSJ, ECF No. 77-4). On November 14,
2011, Alessi & Koenig, LLC (“A&K”),
trustee for Fort Apache Square Homeowners Association
(“HOA”), recorded a Notice of Delinquent
Assessment Lien against the Property. (Ex. 2 to Pl.'s
MSJ, ECF No. 78-2). On May 4, 2012, the HOA recorded a notice
of default and election to sell, and on November 5, 2012, the
HOA recorded a notice of trustee's sale. (Wells
Fargo's MSJ 7:17-19).
December 5, 2012, the HOA sold the property to Red Lizard
Productions, LLC (“RLP”) for $5, 300, which was
recorded on December 7, 2012. (Pl.'s MSJ 2:20-24). RLP
transferred the Property to Plaintiff on March 7, 2013.
(Wells Fargo's MSJ 7:24-25).
Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action:
(1) quiet title with a requested remedy of declaratory relief
and (2) injunctive relief. (Ex. 1 to Pet. for Removal
(“Compl.”) ¶¶ 34-55, ECF No. 1-1).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary
adjudication 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
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the
case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine
if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to
return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Id.
“Summary judgment is inappropriate if reasonable
jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party, could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's
favor.” Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship,
521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States
v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1999)). 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
determining summary judgment, a court applies a
burden-shifting analysis. “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). In 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 nonmoving 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.
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 Corp., 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,
477 U.S. at 249. 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. at 249-50.