United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Independence Homeowners'
Association's (“the HOA”) motion to dismiss.
(ECF No. 15). Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon
(“BNYM”) filed a response (ECF No. 18), to which
the HOA replied (ECF No. 19).
before the court is plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 38). The HOA and defendant SFR Investments
Pool 1, LLC, (“SFR”) filed responses (ECF Nos.
44, 45), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 48).
before the court is defendant HOA's motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 39). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No.
43), to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 52).
before the court is SFR's motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 40). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 42), to
which SFR replied (ECF No. 53).
before the court is SFR's first stipulation for extension
of time to file replies in support of SFR and the HOA's
motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 49).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 9109
Hilverson Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89148 (the
“property”). (ECF No. 1). On September 26, 2005,
Eric Cattani purchased the property. Id. Cattani
obtained a loan in the amount of $242, 000 from Aegis
Wholesale Corporation (“Aegis”) to finance the
purchase. Id. The loan was secured by a deed of
trust recorded on September 30, 2005. Id.; (ECF No.
38-1). The deed of trust lists Aegis as the lender and
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the
beneficiary “solely as a nominee for Lender and
Lender's successors and assigns.” (ECF No. 38-1).
September 26, 2011, MERS assigned its interest in the deed of
trust to plaintiff via a corporate assignment of deed of
trust (recorded on October 11, 2011). (ECF No. 38-1).
October 4, 2013, Assessment Management Services
(“AMS”), acting on behalf of the HOA, recorded a
notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due
of $1, 424.23. (ECF No. 38-1 at 29). On November 12, 2013,
AMS, acting on behalf of the HOA, recorded a notice of
default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent
assessment lien, stating an amount due of $2, 258.19. (ECF
No. 38-1 at 31).
April 9, 2014, AMS recorded a notice of trustee's sale,
stating an amount due of $4, 944.78 and an anticipated sale
date of May 2, 2014. (ECF No. 38-1 at 34-35).
2, 2014, the HOA foreclosed on the property. (ECF No. 38-1 at
37). SFR purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for
$17, 000. Id. A foreclosure deed in favor of SFR was
recorded on May 14, 2014. Id.
February 6, 2017, plaintiff filed its complaint, alleging
quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants,
breach of NRS 116.1113 against the HOA and AMS, wrongful
foreclosure against the HOA and AMS, and injunctive relief
against SFR. (ECF No. 1).
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
nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly
probative, summary judgment may be granted. See Id.
initial matter, claim (4) of plaintiff's complaint will
be dismissed without prejudice as the court follows the
well-settled rule in that a claim for “injunctive
relief” standing alone is not a cause of action.
See, e.g., In re Wal-Mart Wage & Hour
Emp't Practices Litig., 490 F.Supp.2d 1091, 1130 (D.
Nev. 2007); Tillman v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., No.
2:12-CV-346 JCM RJJ, 2012 WL 1279939, at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 13,
2012) (finding that “injunctive relief is a remedy, not
an independent cause of action”); Jensen v. Quality