United States District Court, D. Nevada
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2006-A3CB MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-C, Plaintiff,
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; ALIANTE MASTER ASSOCIATION; NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants.
M. NAVARRO, CHIEF' JUDGE UNITED-STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No.
37), filed by Defendant Aliante Master Association
(“HOA”), to which Defendant SFR Investments Pool
1, LLC (“SFR”) filed a Joinder, (ECF No. 47).
Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 44), and
HOA filed a Reply, (ECF No. 46). For the reasons discussed
below, the Court GRANTS in part and
DENIES in part HOA's Motion for
case arises from the non-judicial foreclosure on real
property located at 6853 Jungle Fowl Street, North Las Vegas,
Nevada 89084 (the “Property”). (Compl. ¶ 1,
ECF No. 1). In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of
action for: (1) quiet title with a requested remedy of
declaratory judgment; (2) declaratory relief under the Fifth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment; (3) quiet title under the
Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment; (4) injunctive
relief; (5) unjust enrichment against Borrower; (6)
negligence; (7) negligence per se; (8) breach of contract;
(9) misrepresentation; (10) breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing; (11) wrongful and defective
foreclosure; and (12) unjust enrichment against HOA and NAS.
November 13, 2017, HOA and SFR moved to dismiss each of
Plaintiff's claims as untimely under applicable statutes
of limitations for each cause of action. (HOA's Mot.
Dismiss (“MTD”) 2:16-4:21, ECF No. 11);
(SFR's MTD 2:3-10, ECF No. 25). On August 8, 2018, the
Court denied HOA and SFR's motions to dismiss, finding
that Plaintiff's claims effectively centered on quieting
title and therefore were timely asserted under a five-year
limitations period. (Order, ECF No. 36). HOA and SFR now
request that the Court reconsider its prior Order. (Mot. for
Recons., ECF No. 37).
motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent
highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v.
Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation
omitted). Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court
is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the court
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, Multnomah Cnty v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
SFR seek reconsideration on the Court's prior finding
that a five-year limitations period applies to this action.
(HOA's Mot. 2:20-24, ECF No. 37); (SFR's Joinder
2:4-6:28, ECF No. 47). The Court previously reasoned that the
gravamen of Plaintiff's action stemmed in quiet title,
and therefore a uniform limitations period was appropriate.
As the case has developed, however, it has become clear that
Plaintiff seeks to maintain independent theories separate
from its quiet title claim. Accordingly, the Court finds
reconsideration on the applicable limitations periods for
these individualized claims to be appropriate. The Court
addresses the statute of limitations for each cause of action
Statutes of Limitations
stated in the Court's prior Order, a five-year
limitations period governs Plaintiff's first and third
claims to quiet title. (Compl. ¶¶ 66-98, ECF No. 1);
see NRS 11.070; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Tr. for Saxon Asset Sec. Tr. 2007-3, Mortg. Loan
Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-3, Plaintiff, v. SFR
INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., Defendants., No.
2:18-cv-00194-GMN-GWF, 2019 WL 1410887, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar.
28, 2019). Because Plaintiff filed its Complaint less than
five years after the foreclosure sale, Plaintiff's first
and third claims for quiet title are timely. (See
Compl.) (filed October 11, 2017).
Negligence and Negligence Per Se
bases its sixth claim in negligence and its seventh claim in
negligence per se. (Compl. ¶¶ 117-133). In Nevada,
negligence claims are generally subject to a two-year statute
of limitations. See NRS 11.190(4)(e). Where a
negligence claim arises from alleged statutory violations,
courts apply the longer three-year period under NRS
11.190(3)(a), for an “action upon a liability created
by statute.” See, e.g., Prof-2013-S3 Legal
Title Tr., v. SFR Invs. Pool 1,LLC, No.
2:17-cv-02079-JAD-PAL, 2018 WL 2465177, at *6 (D. ...