Premier One Holdings, Inc. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al

Filing 65

ORDER Granting Fannie Mae and FHFA's 61 Motion for Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is entered in favor of Fannie Mae and FHFA and against Plaintiff Premier One Holdings, Inc. as to the remaining claims and counterclaims in this case . The Clerk of the Court shall enter final judgment reflecting that all claims and counterclaims have been resolved in Fannie Mae and FHFA's favor. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/6/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada )
Corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
)
ASSOCIATION; DOES I through X; and ROE )
BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X,
)
)
)
Defendants,
)
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, )
)
as Conservator of the Federal National
)
Mortgage Corporation,
)
)
Intervenor,
)
)
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
)
ASSOCIATION,
)
)
Counter-Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC.; and
SOUTHERN TERRACE HOMEOWNER’S )
)
ASSOCIATION,
)
)
Counter-Defendants.
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-2128-GMN-NJK
ORDER

23

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 61) filed by
24

Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and Intervenor Federal
25

Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”). Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Premier One Holdings, Inc.
Page 1 of 5

1

(“Premier One”) filed a Response (ECF No. 63), and Fannie Mae and FHFA filed a Reply

2

(ECF No. 64).

3

I.

BACKGROUND

4

On July 13, 2015, the Court granted Fannie Mae and FHFA’s motion for summary

5

judgment. (Order, ECF No. 50). Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of

6

Fannie Mae and FHFA as to Plaintiff Premier One’s claim for quiet title. (Id. 5:22–23).

7

Additionally, on October 1, 2015, the Court granted the parties’ Stipulation, which dismissed

8

Fannie Mae’s wrongful foreclosure and injunctive relief counterclaims. (Order, ECF No. 62).

9

As a result, the remaining claims include Fannie Mae and FHFA’s declaratory judgment

10

and quiet title counterclaims and Plaintiff’s cancellation of instruments and injunctive relief

11

claims. In the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, Fannie Mae and FHFA seek summary

12

judgment on the remaining claims and counterclaims.

13

II.

14

LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the

15

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

16

affidavits, if any, show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant

17

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that

18

may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

19

(1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable

20

jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. “Summary judgment is inappropriate if

21

reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict

22

in the nonmoving party’s favor.” Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th

23

Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103–04 (9th Cir. 1999)). A

24

principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported

25

claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986).

Page 2 of 5

1

In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. “When

2

the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come

3

forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went

4

uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing

5

the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp.

6

Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In

7

contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the

8

moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an

9

essential element of the nonmoving party’s case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving

10

party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party’s case

11

on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323–

12

24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and

13

the court need not consider the nonmoving party’s evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,

14

398 U.S. 144, 159–60 (1970).

15

If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing

16

party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.

17

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute,

18

the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is

19

sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the

20

parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors

21

Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid

22

summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual

23

data. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go

24

beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing

25

competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.

Page 3 of 5

1

At summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the

2

truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

3

The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn

4

in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is

5

not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 249–50.

6

III.

7

DISCUSSION
In the Court’s prior Order on Fannie Mae and FHFA’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

8

the Court held that “12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) preempts Nevada Revised Statutes § 116.3116 to

9

the extent that a homeowner association’s foreclosure of its super-priority lien cannot

10

extinguish a property interest of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac while those entities are under

11

FHFA’s conservatorship.” (Order 5:16–19, ECF No. 50). As a result, the Court further held

12

that “the HOA’s foreclosure sale of its super-priority interest on the Property did not extinguish

13

Fannie Mae’s interest in the property secured by the Deed of Trust or convey the Property free

14

and clear to Premier One.” (Id. 5:19–21).

15

Based on the holding in the Court’s prior Order on Fannie Mae and FHFA’s Motion for

16

Summary Judgment, summary judgment is appropriate in favor of Fannie Mae and FHFA on

17

the remaining claims and counterclaims in this case.1

18

IV.

CONCLUSION

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Fannie Mae and FHFA’s Motion for Summary

20

Judgment (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED. Accordingly, summary judgment is entered in favor of

21

Fannie Mae and FHFA and against Plaintiff Premier One Holdings, Inc. as to the remaining

22

claims and counterclaims in this case.

23
24
1

25

In Plaintiff’s Response, Plaintiff does not argue that the Court’s holding in the prior Order on Fannie Mae and
FHFA’s Motion for Summary Judgment does not dispose of the remaining claims and counterclaims. Rather,
Plaintiff merely asserts that the Court wrongly decided Fannie Mae and FHFA’s prior Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Response 3:1–10, ECF No. 63).

Page 4 of 5

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter final judgment

2

reflecting that all claims and counterclaims have been resolved in Fannie Mae and FHFA’s

3

favor.

4

6
DATED this _____ day of April, 2016.

5
6
7

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 5 of 5