United States District Court, D. Nevada
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiff(s),
SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 1915 AUTUMN SAGE, et al., Defendant(s).
before the court is defendant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 1915
Autumn Sage's (“Saticoy Bay”) motion for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff U.S. Bank National
Association (“U.S. Bank”) filed a response (ECF
No. 30), to which Saticoy Bay replied (ECF No. 32).
before the court is U.S. Bank's motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 27). Saticoy Bay filed a response (ECF No.
31), to which U.S. Bank replied (ECF No. 33).
action arises from a dispute over real property located at
1915 Autumn Sage Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada (“the
property”). (ECF No. 1).
A. Clayson and William S. Clayson (“the
Claysons”) purchased the property on or about September
13, 2005. See (ECF No. 26-3). The Claysons financed
the purchase with a loan in the amount of $322, 000.00 from
Silver State Financial Services (“Silver State”).
Id. Silver State secured the loan with a deed of
trust, which names Silver State as the lender, Ticor 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
10, 2011, Eldorado Neighborhood Second Homeowners Association
(“Eldorado”), through its agent Assessment
Management Services (“AMS”), recorded a notice of
delinquent assessment lien (“the lien”) against
the property for the Claysons' failure to pay Eldorado in
the amount of $736.09. (ECF No. 13-1). On November 14, 2011,
Eldorado recorded a notice of default and election to sell
pursuant to the lien, stating that the amount due was $1,
671.33 as of November 10, 2011. (ECF No. 13-2). On December
23, 2011, U.S. Bank acquired all beneficial interest in the
deed of trust. (ECF No. 26-4).
February 18, 2013, U.S. Bank's loan servicer contacted
Eldorado, through its agent AMS, to disclose that it received
the notice of default and will take necessary actions to
protect the deed of trust. (ECF No. 27-1). On March 18, 2013,
U.S. Bank's loan servicer contacted AMS again to discuss
the foreclosure proceedings. (ECF No. 27-3). In the course of
the communication, AMS, on behalf of Eldorado, represented
that the foreclosure sale will not wipe out U.S. Bank's
deed of trust. Id.
18, 2013, Eldorado recorded a notice of foreclosure sale
against the property. (ECF No. 13-3). On May 27, 2014,
Eldorado sold the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale
to defendant Saticoy Bay in exchange for $11, 200.00. (ECF
No. 13-4). On May 30, 2014, Eldorado recorded the
trustee's deed upon sale with the Clark County
recorder's office. Id.
April 10, 2018, U.S. Bank initiated this action, asserting a
single claim for quiet title against all defendants. (ECF No.
1). Now, U.S. Bank and Saticoy Bay have file cross-motions
for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 26, 27).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose
of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of
factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should
be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v.
Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).
However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the
nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id.
determining summary judgment, a court applies a
burden-shifting analysis. The moving party must first satisfy
its initial burden. “When the party moving for summary
judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must
come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a
directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at
trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial
burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact
on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp.
Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480
(9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of
proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its
burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an
essential element of the non-moving party's case; or (2)
by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a
showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that
party's case on which that party will bear the burden of
proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at
323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden,
summary judgment must be denied and the court need not
consider the nonmoving party's evidence. See Adickes
v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970).
moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine
issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
(1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the
opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact
conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the
claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge
to resolve the parties' differing ...