United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. NAVARRO, DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.
64), filed by Defendant Spring Mountain Ranch Master
Association (“HOA”). Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank,
NA. (“Plaintiff) filed a response, (ECF No. 72), and
HOA filed a reply, (ECF No. 80).
pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment,
(ECF No. 65), filed by Defendant Premier One Holdings, Inc.
(“Premier One”). Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF
No. 72), and Premier One filed a Reply, (ECF No. 79).
pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 66). HOA and Premier One
(collectively, “Defendants”) each filed
Responses, (ECF Nos. 69, 73), and Plaintiff filed Replies,
(ECF Nos. 81-82).
reasons discussed below, HOA's Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED, Premier One's Motion
for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is
case arises from the non-judicial foreclosure on real
property located at 8904 Meisenheimer Avenue, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89143 (the “Property”). (See Deed
of Trust, Ex. 1 to Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J.
(“MSJ”), ECF No. 66-1). On October 18, 2005,
Michael Vattima and Beatrice Vattima (collectively,
“Borrowers”) purchased the Property by way of a
loan in the amount of $201, 500.00 secured by a deed of trust
(“DOT”), naming Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the original
beneficiary, recorded on October 24, 2005. (Id.).
Plaintiff gained beneficial interest in the DOT through an
assignment recorded on October 4, 2010. (See
Assignment, Ex. 2 to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 66-2).
Borrowers' failure to stay current on their payment
obligations, Nevada Association Services, Inc.
(“NAS”), on behalf of HOA, initiated foreclosure
proceedings by recording a notice of delinquent assessment
lien. (See Notice of Delinquent Assessment Lien, Ex.
3 to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 66-3). The HOA subsequently
recorded a notice of default and election to sell. (Notice of
Default, Ex. 4 to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 66-4).
March 15, 2012, the law firm Miles, Bauer, Bergstrom &
Winters LLP (“Miles Bauer”), on behalf of Bank of
America, N.A. (“BANA”), the servicer of the loan,
requested a ledger from HOA, through NAS, identifying the
amount owed on the superpriority portion of HOA's lien.
(First Miles Bauer Letter, Ex. 2 to Miles Bauer Aff., ECF No.
66-6). NAS did not respond, and BANA calculated the lien
amount, “the sum of nine months of common assessments,
” to be $369.00 based on a previous ledger it had
received from HOA regarding a different property. BANA then
sent NAS a check for the amount. (See Tender Letter,
Ex. 3 to Miles Bauer Aff., ECF No. 66-6); (Confirmation of
Receipt, Ex. 4 to Miles Aff., ECF No. 66-6).
the alleged tender, NAS proceeded with the foreclosure by
recording a notice of foreclosure sale and subsequently
foreclosing on the Property. (See Notice of
Foreclosure Sale, Ex. 5 to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 66-5). On
August 30, 2013, Premier One recorded a foreclosure deed
stating it purchased the Property for $21, 500.00.
(Foreclosure Deed, Ex. 7 to Pl.'s MSJ, ECF No. 66-7).
filed the instant Complaint, (ECF No. 9), on July 5, 2016,
asserting the following causes of action arising from the
foreclosure and subsequent sale of the Property: (1) quiet
title against HOA, NAS, Premier One, and WV International,
Inc.; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against HOA and NAS; (3)
wrongful foreclosure against HOA and NAS; and (4) injunctive
relief against Premier One. (See Compl. ¶¶
30-78). In its Answer, (ECF No. 45), Premier One asserts
counterclaims against Plaintiffs for: (1) quiet title; and
(2) a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting
Plaintiff from transferring its interest in the Property.
(See Answer 14:9-19:5).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary
adjudication 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
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the
case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine
if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to
return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Id.
“Summary judgment is inappropriate if reasonable
jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party, could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's
favor.” Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship,
521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States
v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1999)). 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
determining summary judgment, a court applies a
burden-shifting analysis. “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). In 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 nonmoving 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.