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.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Carson Ranch East Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 3, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP f\k\a COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., Plaintiff,
v.
CARSON RANCH EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         In a prior order (ECF No. 67 (the “Order”)), the Court found that Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.'s deed of trust (“DOT”) still encumbers the property commonly known as 5844 Karnes Ranch Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89131 (the “Property”), even though defendant Carson Ranch East Homeowners Association (“HOA”) foreclosed on it, and sold it to defendant Premier One Holdings, Inc. (“Premier”) at a foreclosure sale held on September 17, 2013 (the “HOA Sale”)-because the federal foreclosure bar prevented the DOT from being extinguished. (ECF No. 67.) Before the Court is Premier's motion for reconsideration of the Order (“Motion”).[1] (ECF No. 76.) Because the Court is unpersuaded it should reconsider the Order, and as further explained below, the Court will deny the Motion.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). But “[a] motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Premier argues that reconsideration is warranted because of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 433 P.3d 263, 2019 WL 292823 (Nev. 2019) (“JPMorgan”). Assuming JPMorgan constitutes intervening law, [2] the Court will not reconsider the Order based on JPMorgan.

         As Plaintiff points out (ECF No. 80 at 2, 3), this Court has already considered and rejected Premier's reading of JPMorgan. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Huffaker Hills Unit No. 2 Residence Assoc., No. 3:15-cv-502-MMD-WGC, 2019 WL 1261351, at *3 n.3 (D. Nev. Mar. 19, 2019) (“Huffaker Hills”) (currently on appeal). To briefly reiterate, the Court distinguishes JPMorgan from this case because JPMorgan dealt with a declaration prepared by a Chase bank employee containing statements that could not be true, whereas the Order relied on a declaration from Graham Babin, an Assistant Vice President at Fannie Mae (the “Babin Declaration”), which does not contain any statements that cannot be true. (ECF No. 54-3.) See also Huffaker Hills, 2019 WL 1261351, at *3 n.3.

         Further, and to the extent that Premier attacks the validity of the Babin Declaration (ECF No. 76 at 6), the Court has considered and rejected nearly identical challenges to very similar declarations from Babin several times. See, e.g., Ditech Fin. LLC v. Las Vegas Dev. Grp., LLC, No. 3:16-cv-00351-MMD-CBC, 2019 WL 4168733, at *1, *3-*4 (D. Nev. Sept. 3, 2019); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Casoleil Homeowners Ass'n, No. 3:16-cv-00307-MMD-WGC, 2019 WL 2601555, at *1, *4 (D. Nev. June 25, 2019) (currently on appeal). The Ninth Circuit has also rejected similar challenges to similar evidence. See Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923, 932-33 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding business records provided by Freddie Mac sufficient evidence of its property interest); see also Williston Inv. Grp., LLC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 736 Fed.Appx. 168, 169 (9th Cir. 2018) (same). The Court therefore rejects Premier's arguments regarding the Babin Declaration.

         In sum, the Court will deny the Motion.

         IV. CONCLUSION

         The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the Motion.

         It is therefore ordered that Premier's motion for ...


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.