United States District Court, D. Nevada
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE GSAMP TRUST 2005-SEA2, Plaintiff,
THE FOOTHILLS AT SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Counter/Cross Claimant,
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, et al., Counter/Cross Defendants.
M. NAVARRO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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).
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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
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).
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.
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 ...