United States District Court, D. Nevada
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs,
BRAEWOOD HERITAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.
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).
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).
before the court is U.S. Bank's motion for ruling
regarding U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment. (ECF
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.
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).
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).
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).
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.
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).
instant motions, U.S. Bank and the HOA move for summary
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF
Nos. 33, 34). . . . . . .
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. 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 ...