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.

U.S. Bank National Association v. Braewood Heritage Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 7, 2018

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs,
v.
BRAEWOOD HERITAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendant Braewood Heritage Association's (the “HOA”) motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) filed a response (ECF No. 36), to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 39).

         Also before the court is U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 34). The HOA filed a response (ECF No. 35), to which U.S. Bank replied (ECF No. 40).

         Also before the court is U.S. Bank's motion for ruling regarding U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 41).

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 3364 Royce Court, Las Vegas, Nevada (“the property”). (ECF No. 1 at 2). Lila Secara (the “borrower”) purchased the property in July 2005. (ECF No. 34 at 3). The borrower obtained a loan in the amount of $176, 000.00, repayment of which was secured by a deed of trust. Id.

         The deed of trust identified Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the original beneficiary to the deed of trust. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3). On January 14, 2013, a corporate assignment of deed of trust was recorded assigning beneficial interest in the property to U.S. Bank. (ECF No. 1 at 3).

         On January 4, 2011, the HOA's trustee recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien against the property. (ECF No. 1 at 4). On February 22, 2011 the trustee recorded a notice of default and election to sell real property to satisfy assessment lien against the property. (ECF No. 1 at 4). On March 23, 2011, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”) (U.S. Bank's predecessor-in-interest) contacted the HOA's trustee to request the amount to pay off the super-priority portion of the HOA lien. (ECF No. 1 at 4). The trustee never responded to the request, so BAC was unable to tender the amount. (ECF No. 1 at 4).

         On December 18, 2012, the HOA's trustee filed a notice of foreclosure sale under notice of delinquent assessment lien against the property. (ECF No. 1 at 4). The foreclosure sale occurred on February 13, 2014, and the HOA purchased the property for $8, 689.67. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Seven days after the sale, a foreclosure deed was recorded, and the HOA claimed its interest in the property. (ECF No. 1 at 4). On December 11, 2015, the HOA then transferred its interest in the property via quitclaim deed to Ray Bell and Darren Olds (“buyers”). (ECF No. 1 at 4).

         U.S. Bank alleged six causes of action: (1) quiet title against all defendants; (2) preliminary injunction against the buyers; (3) unjust enrichment against all defendants; (4) wrongful foreclosure against the HOA; (5) negligence against the HOA; and (6) negligence per se against the HOA. (ECF No. 1).[1]

         On August 17, 2016, the HOA moved to dismiss U.S. Bank's complaint. (ECF No. 13). On February 10, 2017, the court granted the HOA's motion to dismiss as to all claims except for U.S. Bank's quiet title claim. (ECF No. 31).

         In the instant motions, U.S. Bank and the HOA move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF Nos. 33, 34). . . . . . .

         II. Legal Standard

         The 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).

         For 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.

         In 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).

         By 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).

         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. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. ZenithRadio 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 ...


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.