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

Filing 85

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)

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
AMENDED 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

To preserve judicial resources, the Court expresses its willingness to reconsider or

2

vacate its prior Order, (ECF No. 78). 1 Accordingly, if the Court of Appeals for the Ninth

3

Circuit remands this case in light of this Order,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of

4
5

remand to file renewed dispositive motions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 84), is now

6
7

amended to conform with this Order.
The Clerk of Court shall reopen the case and deliver a copy of this Order to the United

8
9

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-15703.
26
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

1

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