Bank of America, N.A. v. Alturas at Mountain's Edge Homeowners Association et al
AMENDED ORDER Re: 84 Order. Parties shall have thirty days from the date of remand to file renewed dispositive motions. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/26/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF: cc: USCA - JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al.,
Case No.: 2:15-cv-01097-GMN-NJK
On March 21, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff Bank of America,
N.A., (“Plaintiff”) because, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832
F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the Alturas at Mountain’s Edge Homeowners Association (“HOA”)
“foreclosed under a facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and therefore the “foreclosure sale
cannot have extinguished” Plaintiff’s deed of trust on the property. (Order 6:6–8, ECF No. 78).
The Ninth Circuit has since held, however, that Nevada’s homeowner’s association foreclosure
scheme is not facially unconstitutional because the decision in Bourne Valley was based on a
construction of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was incorrect.
See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir.
2019) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR
Investments Pool1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)). Moreover,
for orders from this district that relied on Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and were thereafter appealed, the Ninth Circuit recently began
reversing and remanding such orders in light of Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight
Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019). See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A, v. SFR
Investments Pool 1, LLC, No. 18-16006, 2019 WL 6817304, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019).
Page 1 of 2
To preserve judicial resources, the Court expresses its willingness to reconsider or
vacate its prior Order, (ECF No. 78). 1 Accordingly, if the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit remands this case in light of this Order,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of
remand to file renewed dispositive motions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 84), is now
amended to conform with this Order.
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.
DATED this _____ day of December, 2019.
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court
The Court previously vacated its Order, (ECF No. 78), through a later Order filed on December 18, 2019. (See
Order, ECF No. 84). However, because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the aspects of the case properly
involved in the current appeal, the Court now AMENDS the December 18, 2019 Order, (ECF No. 84), in part to
indicate the Court’s willingness to reconsider or vacate the prior judgment upon remand pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 62.1. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (holding that the
filing of a notice of appeal “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control
over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal”); Mendia v. Garcia, 874 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2017)
(remanding to district court to permit reconsideration of the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 and Fed.
R. App. P. 12.1).
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?