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.

M&T Bank v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 10, 2019

M&T BANK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES C. MAHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the court is defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's (“SFR”) motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 92). Plaintiffs Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) and M&T Bank (“M&T”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed a response (ECF No. 97), to which SFR replied (ECF No. 98).

         Also before the court is plaintiffs' motion for leave to file surreply. (ECF No. 99). SFR filed a response (ECF No. 100), to which plaintiffs replied (ECF No. 101).

         I. Facts

         This action arises from a dispute over real property located at 8186 Deadwood Bend court, Las Vegas, Nevada 89178 (“the property”). (ECF No. 1).

         Ronald Franke purchased the property on or about November 2, 2006. (ECF No. 28-2). Franke financed the purchase with a loan in the amount of $202, 250.00 from Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC (“Universal”). Id. Universal secured the loan with a deed of trust, which names 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 January 5, 2007, Freddie Mac purchased the loan, thereby obtaining a property interest in the deed of trust. (ECF No. 22). On May 23, 2012, MERS assigned the deed of trust to M&T, Freddie Mac's authorized servicer of the loan. (ECF Nos. 22, 28-12).

         On June 24, 2011, Diamond Creek Community Association (“Diamond Creek”), through its agent Alessi & Koenig, LLC (“A&K”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien (“the lien”) against the property for Franke's failure to pay Copper Creek in the amount of $930.00. (ECF No. 28-8). On December 1, 2011, Diamond Creek recorded a notice of default and election to sell pursuant to the lien, stating that the amount due was $2, 105.00 as of November 7, 2011. (ECF No. 28-9).

         On May 7, 2012, Diamond Creek recorded a notice of foreclosure sale against the property. (ECF No. 28-11). On July 20, 2012, Diamond Creek sold the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale to SFR in exchange for $5, 200.00. (ECF No. 28-13). On July 24, 2012, SFR recorded the deed of foreclosure with the Clark County recorder's office. Id.

         On July 7, 2017, Freddie Mac and M&T filed a complaint, alleging four causes of action: (1) declaratory relief under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) against SFR; (2) quiet title under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) against SFR; (3) declaratory relief under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments against all defendants; and (4) quiet title under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments against SFR. (ECF No. 1).

         On November 15, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21), holding that the foreclosure sale did not extinguish the deed of trust. (ECF No. 90). The court also declined to grant SFR Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) relief because the evidence before the court was sufficient to preclude a genuine dispute of material fact pertaining to Freddie Mac's interest in the deed of trust. Id. On that same day, the clerk entered judgment. (ECF No. 91).

         On December 13, 2018, SFR filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that new evidence shows that there is a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to Freddie Mac's interest in the deed of trust. (ECF No. 92). On December 17, 2018, SFR appealed to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 93). On January 8, 2019, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a surreply in opposition to SFR's motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 99).

         II. Legal Standard

         A 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). ‚ÄúReconsideration 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 ...


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.