Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 31, 2019

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2006-A3CB MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-C, Plaintiff,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; ALIANTE MASTER ASSOCIATION; NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants.

          ORDER

          GLORIA M. NAVARRO, CHIEF' JUDGE UNITED-STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending 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 Reconsideration.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This 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. (Id.).

         On 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).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         “[A] 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         HOA and 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 in turn.

         A. Statutes of Limitations[1]

         i. Quiet Title

         As stated in the Court's prior Order, a five-year limitations period governs Plaintiff's first and third claims to quiet title.[2] (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).

         ii. Negligence and Negligence Per Se

         Plaintiff 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. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.