Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 110

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 99 the Court's prior Order is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of this Order to file renewed dispositive motions. The Clerk of Court shall reopen the case and deliver a copy of this Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-15583. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/18/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: COA - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al.,
7
8

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-00693-GMN-PAL
ORDER

9
10

On March 6, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff Bank of America,

11

N.A., (“Plaintiff”) because, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832

12

F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the Monterosso Premier Homeowners Association (“HOA”)

13

“foreclosed under a facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and therefore the “foreclosure sale

14

cannot have extinguished” Plaintiff’s deed of trust on the property. (Order 6:24–25, ECF No.

15

99). The Ninth Circuit has since held, however, that Nevada’s homeowner’s association

16

foreclosure scheme is not facially unconstitutional because the decision in Bourne Valley was

17

based on a construction of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear

18

was incorrect. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d

19

620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in

20

light of SFR Investments Pool1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)).

21

Moreover, for orders from this district that relied on Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo

22

Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and were thereafter appealed, the Ninth Circuit

23

recently began reversing and remanding such orders in light of Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington

24

W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019). See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A, v.

25

Page 1 of 2

1

SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, No. 18-16006, 2019 WL 6817304, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13,

2

2019).

3

Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 99), is

5
6
7
8
9

VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of
this Order to file renewed dispositive motions.
The Clerk of Court shall reopen the case and deliver a copy of this Order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-15583.

10
11

18

DATED this _____ day of December, 2019.

12
13
14

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

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2