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. Saticoy Bay

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 18, 2019

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-R3, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
SATICOY BAY, LLC SERIES 2764 TROTWOOD, a Nevada Limited liability Company; and SMOKE RANCH MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, a Nevada non Profit Corporation, Defendants. SMOKE RANCH MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Third-Party Defendant.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         This dispute arises from the foreclosure sale of property to satisfy a homeowners' association lien. Before the Court are Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-R3's (“Bank”) and Defendant Saticoy Bay, LLC Series 2764 Trotwood's (“Saticoy”) cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 49, 50.) The Court has reviewed the related responses (ECF Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54) and replies (ECF Nos. 55, 56). For the following reasons, the Court grants Saticoy's motion for summary judgment and denies the Bank's motion for summary judgment. The Court also dismisses Smoke Ranch Maintenance District's (“HOA”) third party complaint as moot.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.

         Wanda Flowers (“Borrower”) purchased property (“Property”) located within the HOA in 2005 with a loan (“Loan”) secured by a first deed of trust (“DOT”). (ECF No. 49-2 at 2-3, 21.) The Bank obtained the beneficial interest in the DOT in October 2012. (ECF No. 49-6 at 2-3.) Prior to October 2012, only entities other than the Bank[1] owned the DOT or held a beneficial interest in the DOT. (See ECF No. 49 at 4.)

         The HOA recorded the following notices against the Property between November 2011 and May 2014 through its agent, Red Rock Financial Services (“Red Rock”): notice of delinquent assessment lien (ECF No. 49-7); notice of default and election to sell (ECF No. 49-8); and notice of foreclosure sale (ECF No. 49-10).

         The HOA sold the property at a foreclosure sale (“HOA Sale”) on June 13, 2014, to Saticoy for $12, 800. (ECF No. 49-11 at 2.)

         The Bank asserts the following claims in the Complaint: (1) quiet title/declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS § 30.010 et seq., and NRS § 40.010 against all Defendants; (2) declaratory relief under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments against all Defendants; (3) quiet title under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments against all Defendants; and (4) permanent and preliminary injunction against Saticoy. (ECF No. 1 at 7-11.) In the prayer for relief, the Bank primarily seeks a declaration that the HOA Sale did not extinguish the DOT. (Id. at 11.)

         The HOA asserts the following claims in its third party complaint against Red Rock: implied and express indemnity; contribution; apportionment; breach of contract; and declaratory relief. (ECF No. 7 at 10-15.)

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         “The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no dispute as to the facts before the court.” Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric, 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). An issue is “genuine” if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could find for the nonmoving party and a dispute is “material” if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Id. at 250-51. “The amount of evidence necessary to raise a genuine issue of material fact is enough ‘to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.'” Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968)). In evaluating a summary judgment motion, a court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 1986).

         The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). Once the moving party satisfies Rule 56's requirements, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The nonmoving party “may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute exists, ” Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

         Further, “when parties submit cross-motions for summary judgment, ‘[e]ach motion must be considered on its own merits.'” Fair Hous. Council of Riverside Cty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted) (quoting William W. Schwarzer, et al., The Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions, 139 F.R.D. 441, 499 (Feb. 1992)). “In fulfilling its duty to review ...


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.