United States District Court, D. Nevada
U.S. BANK, N.A., Plaintiffs,
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Defendants.
before the court is plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A.'s
(“U.S. Bank”) motion for reconsideration (ECF No.
98), which follows remand from the Ninth Circuit. Defendant
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) filed a
response. (ECF No. 101). U.S. Bank did not file a reply and
the time to do so has passed.
case involves a dispute over real property located at 2830
Bridleton Avenue, North Las Vegas, Nevada, 89081 (the
“property”). (ECF No. 1)
Khuon purchased the property on July 21, 2005. (ECF No.
81-3). Khuon financed the purchase with a loan in the amount
of $276, 150.00 from Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC
(“Universal”). (ECF No. 81-5). Universal secured
the loan with a deed of trust, which it recorded on July 25,
2005. Id. The deed of trust identifies Universal as
the lender, Stewart Title Company as the trustee, and
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
(“MERS”) as the beneficiary as nominee for the
lender and lender's successors and assigns. Id.
On December 15, 2011, U.S. Bank acquired all beneficial
interest in the deed of trust. (ECF No.
November 17, 2009, Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners
Association (“Azure”), through its agent Alessi
& Koenig, LLC (“A&K”), recorded a notice
of delinquent assessment lien (the “lien”)
against the property for Khuon's failure to pay Azure in
the amount of $1, 347.14. (ECF No. 81-10). On January 14,
2010, Azure recorded a notice of default and election to sell
pursuant to the lien, stating an amount due of $2, 187.14.
(ECF No. 81-15).
November 5, 2010, U.S. Bank's predecessor in interest
requested from Azure the superpriority amount of the lien.
(ECF No. 80-16). On November 9, 2010, Azure provided a payoff
ledger of Khuon's delinquent payment history. (ECF No.
80-3). The payoff ledger shows an outstanding balance of $4,
481.44, but does not state what portion of the balance
constitutes the superpriority portion of the lien.
Id. The ledger also does not include charges for
maintenance and nuisance abatement. Id. The ledger
does state, however, that Azure's monthly assessments
against the property were $55.00. Id.
Bank's predecessor in interest used the ledger to
calculate the superpriority amount as $495.00, the sum of
nine months of assessments. Id. On December 2, 2010,
U.S. Bank's predecessor in interest sent a letter and a
check in that amount to Azure. Id. The letter
explained that the check was the sum of nine months of common
assessments and intended to pay off the superpriority portion
of the lien. Id. Azure rejected the check without
August 14, 2012, Azure recorded a notice of trustee's
sale against the property, stating an amount due of $5,
651.44. (ECF No. 81-21). On September 12, 2012, Azure sold
the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale to SFR in
exchange for $7, 500. (ECF No. 81-28). On September 24, 2012,
SFR recorded the foreclosure deed with the Clark County
recorder's office. Id.
August 11, 2015, U.S. Bank initiated this action, asserting
two causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment
against SFR; and (2) permanent and preliminary injunction
against SFR. (ECF No. 1). On July 5, 2018, the court granted
SFR's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 81) and held
that the foreclosure sale extinguished the deed of trust.
(ECF No. 92). On August 6, 2018, U.S. Bank filed a notice of
appeal. (ECF No. 93).
September 13, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a ruling
clarifying how courts should apply NRS 116.3116 et
seq. (“Chapter 116”)-the statute that Azure
relied on when it foreclosed on the property. See Bank of
America, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 427 P.3d
113 (Nev. 2018) (“Bank of America”).
October 24, 2018, U.S. Bank filed a motion for
reconsideration. (ECF No. 98). On December 21, 2018, the
Ninth Circuit stayed appellate proceedings pending the
court's indicative ruling on U.S. Bank's motion. (ECF
No. 106). On March 12, 2019, the court filed an indicative
ruling stating that it would grant U.S. Bank's motion
upon remand from the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 107). On March
27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case for the
limited purpose of allowing the court to enter its indicative
ruling. (ECF No. 108).
motion for reconsideration “should not be granted,
absent highly unusual circumstances.” Marlyn
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571
F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). “Reconsideration is
appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly
discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial
decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an
intervening change in controlling law.” School
Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th
60(b) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend
a previous order, ” however “the rule offers an
extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests
of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.
2003) (internal quotations omitted). A motion for
reconsideration is also an improper vehicle “to raise
arguments or present evidence for the first ...