United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant/cross claimant SFR Investments
Pool 1, LLC's (“SFR”) motion for
reconsideration of the court's order denying SFR's
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 88). (ECF No. 156).
Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) filed a
response (ECF No. 158), to which SFR replied (ECF No. 159).
Facts & Background
case involves a dispute over real property located at 3917
Jamison Park Lane, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89032 (the
February 14, 2017, the court issued an order denying BANA,
SFR, and Davyn Ridge Homeowners Association's (the
“HOA”) motions for summary judgment, among other
motions. (ECF No. 88). SFR now requests that the court
reconsider its order denying SFR's motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 156).
motion for reconsideration “should not be granted,
absent highly unusual circumstances.” Kona Enters.,
Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.
2000). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district
court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)
committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS,
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b). “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be
filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend
a previous order[;]” however, “the rule offers an
extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests
of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.
2003) (internal quotations omitted). A motion for
reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments . .
. for the first time when they could reasonably have been
raised earlier in litigation.” Kona Enters.,
Inc., 229 F.3d at 890; see also LR 59-1(b)
(“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. A movant
must not repeat arguments already presented unless (and only
to the extent) necessary to explain controlling, intervening
law or to argue new facts. A movant who repeats arguments
will be subject to appropriate sanctions.”).
contends that the court's February 14, 2017 order denying
summary judgment stated “BANA has not shown its [sic]
entitled to summary judgment based on [commercial
reasonableness] nor has BANA raised a genuine dispute
sufficient to withstand SFR's motion for summary
judgment.” (ECF No. 88 at 14). Accordingly, SFR argues
that its summary judgment motion should have been granted.
(ECF No. 156).
court's February 14, 2017 order, the court held that BANA
failed to show that the foreclosure sale was commercially
unreasonable. (ECF No. 88). The court also held that the HOA
trustee's rejection of BANA's purported tender was
not wrongful. Id. Instead of tendering the full
amount set forth in the notice of default, BANA tendered a
lesser amount based on what it calculated to be the
superpriority portion of the lien. Id. Accordingly,
the court concluded that BANA failed to properly raise any
equitable challenges to the foreclosure sale. Id.
However, because the court found that genuine issues of fact
existed as to SFR's status as a bona fide purchaser, the
court denied SFR's motion for summary judgment.
April 17, 2017, subsequent to this court's order denying
SFR's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 88), the Court
of Appeals of Nevada upheld a district court order granting
summary judgment in favor of the buyer, despite the
buyer's contested bona fide purchaser. Nationstar
Mortg., LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, No. 70653,
2017 WL 1423938, at *3 n.4 (Nev. App. Apr. 17, 2017)
(“Because we conclude that Nationstar failed to
properly raise any equitable challenges to the foreclosure
sale, we need not address its argument that SFR was not a
bona fide purchaser for value.”).
as in Nationstar Mortg., LLC, the court concluded
that BANA failed to adequately raise any equitable challenges
to the foreclosure sale. Accordingly, SFR's contested
status as a bona fide purchaser does not preclude granting
summary judgment in SFR's favor. In light of the Court of
Appeals of Nevada's subsequent ruling, the court will now
grant SFR's motion for summary judgment.
court will grant SFR's motion to reconsider (ECF No. 156)
the courts February 14, 2017 order denying SFR's motion
for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court will now grant
SFR's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 61). In