U.S. Bank, National Association, As Trustee for the Holders of the J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-S3, MOrtgage Pass-Through Certificates 2007-S3 v. Southern Highlands Community Association et al

Filing 77

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's 76 Motion to Certify a Question of Law to Nevada's Supreme Court is Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 01/05/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

U.S. BANK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7

vs.
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2:15-cv-01484-KJD-VCF
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CERTIFY
A QUESTION OF LAW TO NEVADA’S
SUPREME COURT (ECF No. 76)

Before the court is the Motion to Certify a Question of Law to Nevada’s Supreme Court. (ECF
No. 76).
Movant proposes certification of the following question:

Whether NRS § 116.31168(1)’s

incorporation of NRS § 107.090 requires homeowners’ associations to provide notices of default to banks
even when a bank does not request notice. Movant argues that an answer to this question will be
determinative of part of this case and will settle important questions of law.
As movant notes in its points and authorities, the Ninth Circuit construed NRS § 116.31168(1)’s
incorporation of NRS § 107.090 as not requiring associations “to provide notice of default to mortgage
lenders even absent a request . . . .” Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154,
1159 (9th Cir. 2016). Movant argues that the Ninth Circuit incorrectly “acted as though there is not
controlling Nevada precedent on NRS § 116.31168(1)’s meaning.” (ECF No. 76 at p. 3).
Movant cites no authority for this court to review the soundness of decisions rendered by the Ninth
Circuit. On this record, the certification requested would not be appropriate. Given the volume of state
court litigation activity concerning these super-priority lien disputes, it is hard to see how certification of
this question is necessary.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion to Certify a

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Question of Law to Nevada’s Supreme Court. (ECF No. 76) is DENIED.
DATED this 5th day of January, 2017.
_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE