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.

U.S. Bank National Association v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 1915 Autumn Sage

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 25, 2019

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v.
SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 1915 AUTUMN SAGE, et al., Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently 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).

         Also 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).

         I. Facts

         This action arises from a dispute over real property located at 1915 Autumn Sage Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada (“the property”). (ECF No. 1).

         Darby 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 assigns. Id.

         On June 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).

         On 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.

         On June 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.

         On 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).

         II. Legal Standard

         The 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).

         For 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.

         In 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).

         By 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).

         If the 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 ...


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.