United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.'s
(“BANA”) motion for partial summary judgment.
(ECF No. 40). Defendants Riverwalk Ranch Crossing Homeowners
Association (“the HOA”) (ECF No. 50) and SFR
Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) (ECF No. 51)
responded, to which BANA replied (ECF No. 52).
before the court is SFR's motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 41). BANA filed a response (ECF No. 47), to which
SFR replied (ECF No. 55).
before the court is the HOA's motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 42). Defendant Absolute Collection
Services, LLC (“ACS”) joined (ECF No. 43) and
BANA filed a response (ECF No. 49), to which the HOA replied
(ECF No. 54).
before the court is the parties' stipulation for an
extension of time to file responses. (ECF No. 44).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 4508
Silverwind Road, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89031 (the
August 11, 2009, Alan Kolb (“the borrower”)
obtained a loan in the amount of $191, 627.00 from DHI
Mortgage Company, Ltd. in order to purchase the property.
(ECF No. 40). The loan was secured by a deed of trust
recorded on September 4, 2009. (ECF No. 40). The deed of
trust was assigned to BANA via an assignment of deed of trust
recorded on March 21, 2012. (ECF No. 40).
November 2, 2011, ACS, acting on behalf of the HOA, recorded
a notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due
of $1, 281.91. (ECF No. 40). On February 10, 2012, ACS
recorded a notice of default and election to sell, stating an
amount due of $2, 240.08. (ECF No. 40). On June 20, 2012, ACS
recorded a notice of trustee's sale, stating an amount
due of $3, 852.62. (ECF No. 40).
March 8, 2012, BANA requested the superprioirty amount of the
HOA lien from ACS. (ECF No. 40). On behalf of the HOA, ACS
sent a letter to BANA refusing to provide a ledger. (ECF No.
40). ACS's letter to BANA further stated that “We
recognize [BANA's] position as the first mortgage company
as the senior lien holder.” (ECF No. 40-F).
November 6, 2012, Val Grigorian (“Grigorian”)
purchased the property for $6, 300.00 at the foreclosure
sale. (ECF No. 40). The trustee's deed upon sale was
recorded on November 8, 2012. (ECF No. 40). Grigorian
transferred his interest in the property to SFR via quitclaim
deed recorded on September 17, 2014. (ECF No. 40).
filed the underlying complaint on September 21, 2016. (ECF
No. 1). The complaint alleges four claims of relief: (1)
quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; (2)
breach of NRS 116.1113 against the HOA and ACS; (3) wrongful
foreclosure against the HOA and ACS; and (4) injunctive
relief against SFR. (ECF No. 1).
instant motions, BANA moves for partial summary judgment on
its claim for quiet title/declaratory judgment (ECF No. 40)
and the HOA and SFR move for summary judgment as to all
claims asserted by BANA (ECF Nos. 41, 42).
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 ...