U.S. Bank v. Diamond Creek Community Association et al
Filing
117
ORDER that the Court's prior Order, (ECF No. 110 ), 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)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
U.S. BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR GSAA
)
HOME EQUITY TRUST 2006-9, ASSET)
BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-9, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
DIAMOND CREEK HOMEOWNERS’
)
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No.: 2:15-cv-01177-GMN-NJK
ORDER
10
11
On May 22, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff U.S. Bank,
12
(“Plaintiff”) because, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d
13
1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the Diamond Creek Community Association (“HOA”) “foreclosed under
14
a facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and therefore the “foreclosure sale cannot have
15
extinguished” Plaintiff’s deed of trust on the property. (Order 6:1–3, ECF No. 110). The Ninth
16
Circuit has since held, however, that Nevada’s homeowner’s association foreclosure scheme is
17
not facially unconstitutional because the decision in Bourne Valley was based on a construction
18
of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was incorrect. See Bank of
19
Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019)
20
(recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR Investments
21
Pool1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)). Moreover, for orders
22
from this district that relied on Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d
23
1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and were thereafter appealed, the Ninth Circuit recently began reversing
24
and remanding such orders in light of Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners
25
Page 1 of 2
1
Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019). See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A, v. SFR Investments Pool 1,
2
LLC, No. 18-16006, 2019 WL 6817304, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019).
3
Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources,
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 110), 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 18-16164.
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
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?