United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.'s
(“BANA”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.
60). Defendants BFP Investments 3, LLC (“BFP”)
filed a response (ECF No. 65), to which BANA replied (ECF No.
before the court is BFP's motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 61). BANA filed a response (ECF No. 63), to which
BFP replied (ECF No. 67).
before the court is BANA's motion for leave to file
supplemental authority. (ECF No. 74). BFP filed a response
(ECF No. 75), to which BANA replied (ECF No. 76).
action arises from a dispute over real property located at 75
N. Valle Verde Dr. #1025, Henderson, Nevada 89074 (“the
property”). (ECF No. 1).
Steffen purchased the property on March 12, 2002. (ECF No.
61-4). On July 7, 2009, Steffen refinanced the property with
a loan in the amount of $207, 994.00 from Security National
Mortgage Company (“Security National”). (ECF No.
60-1). Security National secured the loan with a deed of
trust, which names Security National as the lender, North
American Title 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. The Federal Housing
Authority (“FHA”) insured the deed of trust at
origination. See id. BANA currently holds all
beneficial interest in the deed of trust. (ECF No. 60-3).
January 3, 2012, defendant Pacific Legends Green Valley
Owners' Association (“Pacific Legends”),
through its agent defendant Nevada Association Services, Inc.
(“NAS”), recorded a notice of delinquent
assessment lien (“the lien”) against the property
for Steffen's failure to pay Pacific Legends in the
amount of $1, 863.63. (ECF No. 60-4). On February 24, 2012,
Pacific Legends recorded a notice of default and election to
sell pursuant to the lien, stating that the amount due was
$3, 042.18 as of February 21, 2012. (ECF No. 60-5).
March 13, 2012, BANA requested a ledger from Pacific Legends
so that BANA could determine the superpriority portion of the
lien and tender payment of that amount. (ECF No. 60-6).
Pacific Legends did not respond to BANA or otherwise provide
information that would allow BANA to calculate the
superpriority portion of the lien. See id. As a
result, BANA never sent a check to Pacific Legends. See
4, 2014, Pacific Legends recorded a notice of trustee's
sale against the property. (ECF No. 60-9). On August 22,
2014, Pacific Legends sold the property in a nonjudicial
foreclosure sale to BFP in exchange for $19, 000.00.
See (ECF No. 60-10). On August 25, 2014, Pacific
Legends recorded the foreclosure deed with the Clark County
recorder's office. Id.
8, 2016, BANA initiated this action, asserting four causes of
action: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all
defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against Pacific
Legends and NAS; (3) wrongful foreclosure against Pacific
Legends and NAS; and (4) injunctive relief against BFP. (ECF
No. 1). On December 16, 2016, BFP filed an answer and
cross/counterclaims, asserting two causes of action: (1)
quiet title/declaratory relief against BANA and Steffen; and
(2) injunctive relief against BANA and Steffen. (ECF No. 25).
BANA and BFP have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
(ECF Nos. 60, 61). . . . . . .
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 ...