United States District Court, D. Nevada
LJS&G, LTD., a Nevada Corporation, d/b/a/ LEACH JOHNSON SONG & GRUCHOW, Plaintiff,
Z's, a Nevada Corporation, et al., Defendants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Cross-Claim Plaintiff,
LAKE LAS VEGAS MASTER ASSOCIATION, Cross-Claim Defendant.
M. Navarro, Chief Judge.
before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
(ECF No. 34), filed by Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant Lake
Las Vegas Master Association (“LLVMA”).
Cross-Claim Plaintiff United States of America (the
“Government”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 35), and
LLVMA filed a Reply, (ECF No. 37).
pending before the Court is the Government's Motion for
Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 36). LLVMA did not file a
response, and the time to do so has passed.
case concerns real property located at 31 Rue Mediterra,
Henderson, Nevada (the “Property”), which Z's
(a Nevada corporation) purchased in 2004. (Mot. J. 2:12-19,
3:5-6, ECF No. 34). LLVMA and the South Shore Residential
Community Association (“SSRCA”) are the
homeowners associations (“HOAs”) that manage the
Property. (Id. 2:12-18).
January 5, 2010, the Government filed a Notice of Federal Tax
Lien against the Property with the Clark County Recorder due
to Z's unpaid federal income tax assessments for the
years 2004 and 2005. (Mot. Summ. J. (“MSJ”)
3:18-21, ECF No. 36). On December 14, 2010, LLVMA recorded an
HOA lien against the Property for outstanding fees.
(Id. 4:1-3). On March 21, 2013, SSRCA conducted a
foreclosure sale on the Property because of its own lien on
the Property. (Id.); (Mot. J. 2:13-19). Roughly six
months after the foreclosure sale, LLVMA received a check for
$7, 206.23 from the Property's foreclosure agent, which
represented outstanding fees owed by Z's to LLVMA. (MSJ
January 15, 2016, Plaintiff LJS&G, LTD. filed a Complaint
in the Eighth Judicial District Court for the District of
Nevada, seeking a distribution of $59, 472.43 in proceeds
from the Property's foreclosure sale. (Id.
4:11-13). The Government then removed the action to this
Court on May 23, 2016. (Pet. Removal, ECF No. 1). Upon
removal, the Government filed a cross-claim against LLVMA to
recover $7, 206.23 that LLVMA received from the
Property's March 21, 2013 foreclosure sale. (Am. Answer,
ECF No. 26).
April 17, 2018, LLVMA filed its instant Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings, seeking dismissal of the Government's
cross-claim against it. (ECF No. 34). Shortly afterward, the
Government filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.
36), requesting a judgment that distributes $59, 472.43 in
proceeds to the Government, plus $7, 206.23 in proceeds
already received by LLVMA.
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. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine
if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a
reasonable fact-finder could rely to find for the nonmoving
party. See Id. “The amount of evidence
necessary to raise a genuine issue of material fact is enough
‘to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties'
differing versions of the truth at trial.'”
Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th
Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv.
Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968)). “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).
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.
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.
1987). However, the nonmoving party “may not rely on
denials in the pleadings but must produce specific evidence,
through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show
that the dispute exists, ” Bhan v. NME Hosps.,
Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and
“must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Orr
v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002)
(internal citations omitted). “The mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's
position will be insufficient.” Anderson, 477
U.S. at 252. In 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 producing
competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial.
See 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. See 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 merely colorable or is not
significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.
See Id. at 249-50.