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.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. The Foothills at Southern Highlands Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 27, 2018

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE GSAMP TRUST 2005-SEA2, Plaintiff,
v.
THE FOOTHILLS AT SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Counter/Cross Claimant,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, et al., Counter/Cross Defendants.

          ORDER

          GLORIA M. NAVARRO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 65), filed by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Plaintiff”). Defendants Foothills at Southern Highlands Homeowners Association (“HOA”), Red Rock Financial Services (“Red Rock”), and SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) filed Responses, (ECF Nos. 74, 75, 76), and Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 79).

         Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 71), filed by SFR. HOA filed a notice of non-opposition, (ECF No. 77), Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 78), and SFR filed a Reply, (ECF No. 80).

         For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and SFR's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises from the non-judicial foreclosure on real property located at 5354 San Florentine Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89141 (the “Property”). (Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1). On June 14, 2004, Ulfat Siddiqui (“Borrower”) purchased the Property by way of a loan in the amount of $620, 000.00 secured by a deed of trust (“DOT”) recorded on June 18, 2004. (See Deed of Trust, Ex. A to Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. (“MSJ”), ECF No. 65-1). The DOT identifies Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) as beneficiary. (Id.). On December 8, 2005, a second deed of trust (“SDOT”) was recorded against the Property in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as nominee for Meridias Capital, Inc. (See Second Deed of Trust, Ex. A-5 to SFR's MSJ, ECF No. 71-1).

         Upon Borrower's failure to pay all amounts due, HOA, through its agent Red Rock, recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien on October 22, 2009. (See Notice of Delinquent Assessment, Ex. C to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 65-3). On April 25, 2011, Red Rock, on behalf of HOA, recorded a notice of default and election to sell. (See Notice of Default, Ex. D to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 65-4).

         On January 10, 2013, BANA assigned its interest in the DOT to Plaintiff which was recorded the next day. (See Assignment, Ex. B to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 65-2). On September 23, 2013, HOA, through Red Rock, recorded a notice of foreclosure sale. (See Notice of Trustee's Sale, Ex. E to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 65-5). On November 19, 2013, BANA, as an agent for Plaintiff, unsuccessfully attempted to tender payment to HOA to satisfy the super-priority amount owed. (See Letter, Ex. F3 to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 65-6). HOA foreclosed on the Property on December 20, 2013, and a foreclosure deed was recorded in favor of SFR on December 30, 2013. (See Foreclosure Deed, Ex. G to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 65-7).

         Plaintiff filed its Complaint on February 8, 2016, bringing 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. ¶¶ 29-75). On April 14, 2016, SFR filed an Answer asserting cross claims as well as counterclaims for (1) quiet title; and (2) injunctive relief. (See Answer ¶¶ 47-61, ECF No. 20).

         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). Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.

         At summary judgment, a court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is ...


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.