United States District Court, D. Nevada
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP f\k\a COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., Plaintiff,
CARSON RANCH EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.
MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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”). (ECF No. 76.) Because the
Court is unpersuaded it should reconsider the Order, and as
further explained below, the Court will deny the Motion.
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).
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,  the Court will not reconsider the
Order based on JPMorgan.
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.
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.
the Court will deny the Motion.
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
therefore ordered that Premier's motion for