Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Giavanna Homeowners Association et al

Filing 123

ORDER denying 74 Motion for Summary Judgment.; denying 81 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.; denying 90 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order.; denying 116 Motion to Strike.; denying 117 Motion to Stay.; Responses for 115 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment due 21 days after the date this Order is signed. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 9/25/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

Case No. 2:15-cv-01992-LDG (CWH)
ORDER

GIAVANNA HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15
16

And Related Cross-Claims and
Counterclaims.

17
18
19

Defendant Giavanna Homeowners Association filed a Motion for Summary

20

Judgment (ECF No. 74). The parties stipulated to extend the time to oppose the motion

21

(ECF No. 77), which stipulation the Court granted (ECF No. 79). In part, the extension was

22

granted to allow a single response to the HOA’s motion and an anticipated motion for

23

summary judgment to be filed by defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC. SFR

24

Investments subsequently filed a motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 81), that it

25

captioned as “regarding a pure issue of law: Application of the return doctrine post-Bourne

26

1

Valley.” The matter was fully briefed, though (given the nature of the motion) the

2

opposition did not address the HOA’s motion.

3

The Court subsequently granted (ECF No. 92) plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s

4

Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 36). The parties entered into a stipulation (ECF No.

5

100) permitting Nationstar and cross-defendant Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), leave to

6

withdraw and refile their then-pending motion for summary judgment. The parties noted, in

7

part, the filing of the amended complaint. The Court granted that stipulation (ECF No.

8

108).

9

The parties further stipulated to extend the deadline for Nationstar and BANA to file

10

their motion (ECF No. 105), which the Court granted (ECF No. 107). The parties noted, in

11

part, the pending Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 90) filed by SFR

12

Investments.

13

On June 9, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation to stay this matter pending final

14

resolution of a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court (ECF No.

15

111). The Court granted that stay on June 16, 2017. A review of the Supreme Court’s

16

docket reveals that certiorari was denied on June 26, 2017.

17

Nationstar and BANA filed their motion for summary judgment on August 8, 2017

18

(ECF No. 115). No oppositions have been filed as of this date. However, SFR

19

Investments moved to strike (ECF No. 116), arguing that the stay in this matter had not

20

been lifted. SFR Investments further moved to continue the stay (ECF No. 117) pending a

21

ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court on a certified question.

22

Motion to Strike & Motion to Stay

23

This Court stayed this matter “pending final resolution of the Bourne Valley

24

certiorari proceeding before the United States Supreme Court.” The certiorari proceeding

25

was finally resolved on June 26, 2017. Accordingly, the stay of proceedings in this matter

26

was automatically lifted on that date. As neither party notified the Court that the
2

1

proceedings had terminated, the Court’s docket was not modified to reflect that the matter

2

was no longer stayed. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to strike.

3
4
5

The Court will not impose a new stay on this matter pending the Nevada Supreme
Court’s ruling on a question that has been certified to it.
In light of these rulings, the Court will extend the date by which oppositions must be

6

filed to Nationstar’s and BANA’s motion for summary judgment.

7

Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order

8
9

SFR Investments filed its objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order in the alternative to
its motion that the Magistrate Judge reconsider his order. That is, SFR Investments

10

presented the identical argument to this Court as it did to the Magistrate Judge. Magistrate

11

Judge Hoffman denied the motion for reconsideration without prejudice, noting that it was

12

unclear “exactly how SFR requests that the court change each of its rulings.” The

13

Magistrate Judge granted SFR Investments leave to re-file its motion to correct the noted

14

deficiencies. SFR Investments did not re-file its motion. Accordingly, the Court will deny

15

SFR Investments’ objection.

16

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

17

In its motion for partial summary judgment, SFR Investments asks this Court to

18

determine that, subsequent to the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Bourne Valley Court Trust v.

19

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154, 1156 (9 th Cir. 2016) that “Nevada Revised Statutes

20

section 116.3116's “opt-in” notice scheme facially violated mortgage lenders' constitutional

21

due process rights, §116.3116's “notice scheme” should be returned to its 1991 version.

22

SFR Investments relies upon what it terms the “Return Doctrine:” that “if a statutory

23

amendment is deemed unconstitutional, then the statute ‘returns’ to its pre-am endment

24

version.” Points and Authorities, p.6, ll.3-4 (ECF No. 81). In support, SFR Inv estments

25

cites We the People Nevada v. Miller, 124 Nev. 874, 889 (2008) for the proposition that,

26
3

1

“when a statute is declared unconstitutional, it has no ef fect and the prior governing statute

2

is revived.”

3

In We the People, the Nevada Supreme Court went on to note that “[b]ecause we

4

have declared the current version of NRS 295.056(3) unconstitutional, the former version

5

of that provision remains in effect.” In its holding, the Ninth Circuit stated that “§116.3116

6

‘opt-in’ notice scheme facially violated mortgage lenders' constitutional due process rights.”

7

Bourne Valley, 832 F.3d at 1160. The Ninth Circuit did not expressly identify any specific

8

provision of §116.3116 in its holding. However, in its opinion, the appellate court

9

referenced §116.31163(2), as it requires “notice of default and election to sell be mailed to

10

‘any holder of a security interest encumbering the unit's owner's interest who has notified

11

the association, 30 days before the recordation of the notice of default, of the security

12

interest.’” The court further referenced §116.311635. 1 As then enacted, §116.311635(2)(b)

13

required the mailing of the notice of time and place of the sale to “[t]he holder of a recorded

14

security interest or the purchaser of the unit, if either of them has notified the association,

15

before the mailing of the notice of sale, of the existence of the security interest, lease or

16

contract of sale, as applicable.” AB 612, 1993 Nevada Statutes, Ch. 573, §7(2)(b).

17

SFR Investments does not, however, ask that the Court determine that the former

18

versions of §§116.31163(2) and .31165(2)(b) remain in effect. It does not even ask the

19

Court to more generally find that the former versions of §§116.31163 and .311635 remain

20

in effect. This is unsurprising, as there are no prior versions of either provision. Rather,

21

SFR Investments asks the Court to revive a “notice scheme” that is contained in a different

22

provision within §116.3116 (specifically §116.311638) because §116.311638 was also

23

amended in the same statute that enacted §§116.31163 and .311635. In ef fect, SFR

24
25
26

1

Bourne Valley contains what appears to be an obvious typographical error, as
it cites to §116.31165 (which does not exist) rather than §116.311635 (which contained an
“opt-in” notice provision).
4

1

Investments asks the Court to find that, because the Ninth Circuit’s held in Bourne Valley

2

holding that §116.31163(2) and §116.311635(2)(b) are f acially unconstitutional, the Ninth

3

Circuit implicitly determined that §116.31168, as enacted at the tim e of the foreclosure

4

sale, was also unconstitutional. The Court will not do so. As the Ninth Circuit did not hold

5

that §116.31168 is unconstitutional, the Court will not “revive” the 1991 version of that

6

provision.

7

HOA’s Motion for Summary Judgment

8

Finally, given that the Court permitted Nationstar to amend its complaint, and given

9

that the Court has extended the briefing schedule for Nationstar and BANA’s motion for

10

summary judgment, and given that the HOA’s motion for summary judgment has never

11

been fully briefed, the Court will deny that motion without prejudice, but with leave to renew

12

the motion.

13

ACCORDINGLY,

14

THE COURT ORDERS that Defendant Giavanna Homeowners Association’s Motion

15

for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 74) is DENIED without prejudice as moot. Defendant

16

Giavanna Homeowners Association may, at its discretion, renew its motion by re-filing it or

17

filing a new motion for summary judgment. If Defendant Giavanna Homeowners

18

Association elects to renew its motion, it must do so not later than fourteen days after the

19

date this Order is signed.

20
21
22
23
24
25

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81) is DENIED.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Objections
(ECF No. 90) are DENIED.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion to
Stay Litigation (ECF No. 117) is DENIED.

26
5

1
2

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion to
Strike (ECF No. 116) is DENIED.

3

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the time for filing points and authorities in

4

response to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 115) is EXTENDED as

5

follows: Points and Authorities must be filed in response to the Motion for Partial Summary

6

Judgment not later than 21 days after the date this Order is signed.

7
8

DATED this ______ day of September, 2017.

9
10

Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6