United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. MAHAN UNITED'STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is plaintiff Carrington Mortgage Services,
LLC's (“Carrington”) motion for
reconsideration. (ECF No. 98). Defendant Shadow Springs
Community Association (“Shadow Springs”) filed a
response. (ECF No. 104). Carrington did not file a reply and
the time to do so has passed.
before the court is Carrington's motion for
attorney's fees. (ECF No. 99). Shadow Spring filed a
response (ECF No. 107), to which Carrington replied (ECF No.
case involves a dispute over real property located at 6232
Mercer Valley Street, North Las Vegas, Nevada, 89081 (the
“property”). (ECF No. 1)
8, 2008, Francisco and Esperanza De Mesa (the “De
Mesas”) purchased the property. (ECF No. 69). The De
Mesas financed the purchase with a loan in the amount of
$184, 110.00 from Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp.
(“Taylor”). (ECF No. 58-2). Taylor secured the
loan with a deed of trust, which it recorded July 24, 2008.
Id. The deed of trust identified Taylor as the
lender, Equity Title of Nevada 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.
August 12, 2012, a corporate assignment of deed of trust was
recorded, whereby MERS assigned all beneficial interest in
the deed of trust and note to Bank of America, N.A.
(“BANA”), successor by merger to BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, LP
(“BAC Home Loans”). (ECF No. 69). On February 3,
2015, an assignment of deed of trust was recorded, whereby
BANA as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans, assigned all
beneficial interest in the deed of trust to Carrington.
Id On February 18, 2010, Shadow Springs, through its
agent defendant Red Rock Financial Services, LLC (“Red
Rock”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien
(the “lien”) against the property for the De
Mesas failure to pay Shadow Springs in the amount of $788.60.
(ECF No. 69). On April 2, 2010, Shadow Springs
recorded a notice of default and election to sell pursuant to
the lien, stating an amount due of $1, 731.41. Id.
4, 2010, Carrington's predecessor in interest requested
from Shadow Springs the superpriority amount of the lien.
(ECF No. 70). On June 21, 2010, Shadow Springs provided a
payoff ledger of the De Mesas' delinquent payment
history. (ECF No. 89-4). The payoff ledger shows an
outstanding balance of $2, 197.95 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 Shadow Springs'
monthly assessments against the property were $52.00.
predecessor in interest used the ledger to calculate the
superpriority amount as $468.00, the sum of nine months of
assessments. Id. On July 16, 2010, Carrington's
predecessor in interest sent a letter and a check in that
amount to Shadow Springs. 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. Shadow Springs rejected the check
without explanation. (ECF Nos. 69, 70).
January 11, 2013, Shadow Springs recorded a notice of
foreclosure against the property. (ECF No. 58-6). On February
6, 2013, Shadow Springs sold the property in a nonjudicial
foreclosure sale to defendant RLP Mercer Valley, LLC
(“RLP”) in exchange for $7, 000.00. (ECF No.
58-8). On February 13, 2013, RLP recorded the foreclosure
deed with the Clark County recorder's office.
April 13, 2015, plaintiff filed its original complaint in
this action. (ECF No. 1). On April 24, 2017, plaintiff filed
its first amended complaint. (ECF No. 58). The amended
complaint alleges the following claims: (1) quiet
title/declaratory relief pursuant to U.S.C. § 2201, NRS
30.010, and NRS 40.010 against all defendants; (2) permanent
injunction against Carrington; (3) wrongful/defective
foreclosure against RLP; (4) breach of contract against the
Shadow Springs; and (5) breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing against the Shadow Springs. Id.
2, 2017, Shadow Springs filed crossclaims against Red Rock.
(ECF No. 64). The crossclaims allege the following causes of
action: (1) implied indemnity; (2) contribution; (3)
apportionment; (4) express indemnity; (5) equitable
indemnity; (6) breach of contract; and (7) declaratory
3, 2018, the court denied Carrington's motion for summary
judgment, partially on the grounds that Carrington did not
tender the superpriority amount of the lien. (ECF No. 74). On
December 26, 2018, Carrington moved for reconsideration. (ECF
No. 88). On February 8, 2019, the court granted
Carrington's motion in light of an intervening change in
controlling law. (ECF No. 96). The next day the clerk entered
judgment in accordance with the court's order. (ECF No.
Carrington moves again for reconsideration, requesting that
the court amend its February 8, 2019, order and vacate the
clerk's judgment. (ECF No. 98). Carrington also moves for
attorney's fees. (ECF No. 99).
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