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.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Cortez Heights Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 11, 2018

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
CORTEZ HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge.

         Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 39), filed by Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“Plaintiff”). Movant Alvin Soriano (“Soriano”) and Defendant Cortez Heights Homeowners Association (“HOA”) filed Reponses, (ECF Nos. 42, 44), and Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 55).

         Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 45), filed by HOA. Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 56), and HOA filed a Reply, (ECF No. 58).

         Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 46), filed by Soriano. Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 53), and Soriano filed a Reply, (ECF No. 57).

         Also before the Court is the Motion to Substitute Party, (ECF No. 40), filed by Soriano. Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 49), and Soriano filed a Reply, (ECF No. 54).[1]

         For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, HOA's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Soriano's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Soriano's Motion to Substitute Party is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises from the non-judicial foreclosure on real property located at 5329 La Quinta Hills Street, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89081 (the “Property”). (Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1). On January 26, 2009, Luafaletele T. Tutu'ila (“Borrower”) purchased the Property by way of a loan in the amount of $147, 059.00 secured by a deed of trust (“DOT”) recorded on February 2, 2009. (See Deed of Trust, Ex. A to Pl's Mot. Summ. J. (“MSJ”), ECF No. 39-1). Plaintiff subsequently became beneficiary under the DOT after merging with Countrywide Bank, FSB to whom the DOT was previously assigned. (See Assignment, Ex. B to Pl's MSJ, ECF No. 39-2); (see also FDIC Institution Search Results, Ex. C to Pl's MSJ, ECF No. 39-3).

         Upon Borrower's failure to pay all amounts due, HOA, through its agent Absolute Collection Services, LLC (“ACS”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment on October 5, 2012. (See Notice of Delinquent Assessment Lien, Ex. E to Pl's MSJ, ECF No. 39-5). On January 31, 2013, HOA, through ACS, recorded a notice of default and election to sell, as well as a subsequent notice of sale on May 23, 2013. (See Notice of Default and Election to Sell, Ex. F to Pl's MSJ, ECF No. 39-6); (see also Notice of Sale, Ex. H to Pl's MSJ, ECF No. 39-8). On September 17, 2013, La Quinta Family Trust (“La Quinta”) purchased the Property at HOA's foreclosure sale and recorded its interest on September 20, 2013. (See Trustee's Deed, Ex. I to Pl's MSJ, ECF No. 39-9).

         Plaintiff filed its Complaint on March 18, 2016, asserting the following causes of action arising from the foreclosure and subsequent sale of the Property: (1) quiet title through the requested remedy of declaratory judgment; (2) breach of Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) § 116.1113; (3) wrongful foreclosure; and (4) injunctive relief. (See Compl. ¶¶ 28-79).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication 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 judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. “Summary judgment is inappropriate if reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor.” Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1999)). 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).

         In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. “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). In 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 nonmoving 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. 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. 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. 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. 1987). In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). ...


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.