Bank of America, N.A. v. Alturas at Mountain's Edge Homeowners Association et al

Filing 84

ORDER that the Court's prior Order, (ECF No. 78 ), is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of this Order to file renewed dispositive motions. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/18/2019., Case reopened. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF, cc: USCA - JM) Modified text on 12/19/2019 (EDS).

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-01097-GMN-NJK
ORDER

9
10

On March 21, 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 Alturas at Mountain’s Edge 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 6:6–8, ECF No. 78).

15

The Ninth Circuit has since held, however, that Nevada’s homeowner’s association foreclosure

16

scheme is not facially unconstitutional because the decision in Bourne Valley was based on a

17

construction of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was incorrect.

18

See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir.

19

2019) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

Page 1 of 2

1

Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 78), is

3
4
5
6
7

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 18-15703.

8
9

18
DATED this _____ day of December, 2019.

10
11
12

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

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2