United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE
before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.
80), filed by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
(“Plaintiff). Defendants Sonrisa Homeowners Association
(“HOA”) and SFR Investments Pool, LLC
(“SFR”) filed Responses, (ECF Nos. 84, 91), and
Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 94). Also pending before
the Court is HOA's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.
81), to which Plaintiff and SFR filed Responses, (ECF Nos.
85, 87), and HOA filed a Reply, (ECF No. 92). Lastly before
the Court is SFR's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.
82), to which Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 86), and
SFR filed a Reply, (ECF No. 93). For the reasons stated
herein, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of SFR and
case arises from the non-judicial foreclosure on real
property located at 1232 La Ballena Trail, Henderson, NV
89074 (the “Property”). (See Deed of
Trust, Ex. A to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 80-1). In 2006,
Buenaventura and Rosalina Alcantara
(“Alcantaras”) financed their purchase of the
Property by way of a loan in the amount of $313, 500.00
secured by a deed of trust (the “DOT”).
(Id.). Plaintiff became beneficiary under the DOT
through an assignment recorded on August 22, 2013.
(Assignment, Ex. B to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 80-2). On June
20, 2007, the Alcantaras conveyed the property to Ray
Alcantara, but the property was returned in 2009. (Transfers,
Exs. C, I to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 80-3). Upon the
Alcantaras failure to pay all amounts due, the HOA, through
its agent Nevada Association Services, Inc.
(“NAS”), recorded a notice of delinquent
assessment lien in March 2009, which was later released on
June 3, 2009. (See First Notice of Delinquent
Assessment, Ex. J to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 80-10); (Release,
Ex. K to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 80-11). Between 2009 and
2013, NAS recorded three more delinquent assessment liens
against various purported owners of the property, but each
were released. (See Exs. L-X to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF
March 27, 2013, NAS recorded a fifth lien, which listed the
Alcantaras as the property owners. (See Fifth Notice
of Delinquent Assessment, Ex. Y to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No.
80-25). On September 4, 2013, NAS recorded a notice of
foreclosure sale, which took place on September 27, 2013.
(See Foreclosure Notice, Exs. AA to Pl.'s MSJ,
ECF No. 80-26). At the sale, SFR purchased the Property for
$23, 000.00 and recorded a foreclosure deed on October 7,
2013. (Foreclosure Deed, Ex. CC to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No.
brings this quiet title action seeking a declaration that the
DOT continues to encumber the Property and that SFR's
interest in the Property is subject to this encumbrance.
(See Compl. ¶¶ 48-98, ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff also raises claims for breach of NRS 116, wrongful
foreclosure, and injunctive relief. (Id.). In turn,
SFR asserts competing quiet title, declaratory relief, and
injunctive relief counterclaims against Plaintiff.
(See Answer 18:10- 19:18, ECF No. 24).
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 merely colorable or is not
significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.
Id. at 249-50.
moves for summary judgment on its quiet title claim,
asserting that the DOT survived because the foreclosure was
conducted pursuant to an unconstitutional statutory scheme
and, alternatively, the Property's inadequate sales
price, in conjunction with other evidence of unfairness,
warrants setting aside the sale on equitable grounds.
(Pl.'s MSJ 5:25- 10:8, ECF No. 80). SFR seeks judgment in
the form of a declaration that it is the title holder to the
Property and that Plaintiff's DOT was extinguished by the
foreclosure sale. (SFR's MSJ 23:2-8, ECF No. 82). SFR
also asserts that Plaintiff's quiet title claim cannot
survive because Plaintiff is without standing to bring the
claim. (SFR's Resp. 19:18-20:5, ECF No. 84). The Court
begins with the threshold issues of NRS Chapter 116's
constitutionality and Plaintiff's standing to bring this
Constitutionality of NRS Chapter 116
parties dispute whether the Ninth Circuit's decision in
Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832
F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, No.
16-1208, 2017 WL 1300223 (U.S. June 26, 2017), compels the
Court to find that Plaintiff's DOT survived the ...