United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.'s
(“plaintiff”) motion for reconsideration. (ECF
No. 37). Defendant Nevada New Builds, LLC (“NNB”)
filed a response (ECF No. 40), to which plaintiff replied
(ECF No. 41).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 854
Stainglass Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89110 (the
“property”). (ECF No. 1).
April of 2008, Lidia Vivar purchased the property.
Id. Vivar obtained a loan in the amount of $88, 609
from Direct Equity Mortgage, LLC to purchase the property.
Id. The loan was secured by a deed of trust recorded
on April 25, 2008. Id. On January 19, 2012, the deed
of trust was assigned to “Bank of America, N.A.,
successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a/
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, ” via an
assignment of deed of trust. (ECF No. 30-3).
18, 2012, Nevada Association Services (“NAS”),
acting on behalf of Desert Sands Villas Homeowners
Association (“the HOA”), recorded a notice of
delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $1,
750.25. (ECF No. 30-7). On August 15, 2012, NAS recorded a
notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the
delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $2,
854.14. (ECF No. 30-8).
September 13, 2012, plaintiff requested a ledger from the
HOA, through NAS, that identified the super-priority amount
owed to the HOA. (ECF No. 30-10). Neither the HOA nor NAS
provided a ledger. Id. Based on a ledger from a
different property in the same housing development, plaintiff
sent NAS a check for $1, 889.67 on October 25, 2012, which
represented plaintiff's calculation of nine months of
common assessments on the property, plus its calculation of
“reasonable collection costs.” (ECF No. 37). NAS
refused the payment. Id.
March 27, 2013, NAS recorded a notice of foreclosure sale,
stating an amount due of $4, 867.44. (ECF No. 30-9). On
August 23, 2013, the HOA foreclosed on the property. (ECF No.
30). NNB purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for
$6, 000. (ECF No. 30-11). A foreclosure deed in favor of NNB
was recorded on August 26, 2013. Id. Thereafter, NNB
transferred its interest in the property to defendant Wesley
Chun (“Chun”) via a deed of sale, recorded on
November 13, 2014. (ECF No. 30-14).
initiated this action on August 22, 2016, alleging four
causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment; (2)
breach of NRS 116.1113; (3) wrongful foreclosure; and (4)
injunctive relief. (ECF No. 1). On October 14, 2016, NNB and
Chun filed counterclaims against plaintiff for quiet title,
cancellation of instruments, and injunctive relief. (ECF No.
26, 2017, the court granted the HOA's motion to dismiss,
thereby dismissing all claims against it. (ECF No. 29).
Finally, on May 23, 2018, the court denied plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 36). Plaintiff now
moves for reconsideration of the court's May 23, 2018,
order, based upon an intervening change in controlling case
law from the Nevada Supreme Court. (ECF No. 37). . . . . . .
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
intervening change in controlling law.” School
Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th
Cir. 1993); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend
a previous order, ” however “the rule offers an
extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests
of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.
2003) (internal quotations omitted). A motion for
reconsideration is also an improper vehicle “to raise
arguments or present evidence for the first time when they
could reasonably have been raised earlier in
litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d
argues that the court should reconsider its prior order and
hold that its deed of trust still encumbers the property
because it properly tendered the superpriority portion of the
HOA's lien. See (ECF No. 37). In light of the
Nevada Supreme Court's ruling in Bank of
America, the court ...