Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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. SFR Investments Pool I, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 21, 2018

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,


          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge

         Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 64), filed by Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”). Defendant and Counterclaimant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) filed a Response, (see ECF No. 68), to which BANA filed a Reply, (ECF No. 73).

         Also pending before the Court is SFR's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 65). BANA filed a Response, (ECF No. 67), and SFR filed a Reply, (ECF No. 74). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS BANA's Motion and DENIES SFR's Motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         BANA filed its Complaint on June 10, 2015, asserting claims involving the non-judicial foreclosure on real property located at 10474 Badger Ravine Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89178 (the “Property”). (Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1). On June 22, 2009, non-party Victor Garcia refinanced the Property by way of a loan in the amount of $239, 670.00 secured by a Deed of Trust (“DOT”) recorded July 22, 2009. (Id. ¶ 12).

         On June 4, 2010, Defendant Alturas at Mountain's Edge Homeowners Association (“HOA”), through its agent Alessi & Koenig, LLC (“A&K”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien. (Id. ¶ 22). On January 26, 2011, A&K recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien. (Id. ¶ 18). On February 16, 2012, HOA recorded a notice of trustee's sale. (Id. ¶ 23). On July 11, 2012, SFR purchased the Property at the foreclosure sale pursuant to NRS § 116.1113. (Id. ¶ 33).

         BANA asserts the following causes of action against various parties involved in the foreclosure and subsequent sales of the Property: (1) quiet title with a requested remedy of declaratory judgment; (2) wrongful foreclosure; (3) breach of Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 116.1113; (4) injunctive relief. (Id.).


         The 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. 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. 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 (1986).

         In 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Celotex Corp., 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. 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. Id. at 249-50.


         BANA asserts claims against SFR for quiet title, violation of NRS § 116.1113, wrongful foreclosure, and injunctive relief. The Court first considers the impact of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, No. 16-1208, ...

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.