Bank of America, N.A. v. Mountain Gate Homeowners' Association et al

Filing 102

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 97 BANA's "motion to amend and re-enter order and judgment" be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/3/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:16-CV-540 JCM (NJK)
ORDER

v.
MOUNTAIN GATE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.’s (“BANA”) “motion to

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

amend and re-enter order and judgment.” (ECF No. 97). None of the defendants filed a response,
and the time to do so has passed.
I.

Background
On March 10, 2016, BANA filed a complaint alleging four causes of action: (1) quiet

title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against defendants
Hampton & Hampton Collections, LLC (“H&H”) and Mountain Gate Homeowners’ Association
(“Mountain Gate”); (3) wrongful foreclosure against H&H and Mountain Gate; and (4) injunctive
relief against defendant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 6408 Hillside Brook (“Saticoy Bay”). (ECF No.
1). On April 1, 2016, Saticoy Bay filed a counterclaim against BANA for quiet title and
declaratory relief. (ECF No. 6).
On April 12, 2017, the court entered an order (1) denying BANA’s motion for summary
judgment, (2) granting Saticoy Bay’s motion for summary judgment, and (3) granting Mountain
Gate’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 83). BANA filed a notice of appeal on May 2,
2017. (ECF No. 85). On April 3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit vacated the court’s order and remanded

1

this case “for further proceedings consistent with the opinion in Bank of America, N.A. v. Arlington

2

West Twilight Homeowners Association.” (ECF No. 91).

3

On April 15, 2019, the court entered an order (1) granting BANA’s motion for summary

4

judgment, (2) denying Saticoy Bay’s motion for summary judgment, and (3) denying Mountain

5

Gate’s motion for summary judgment (“post-appeal summary judgment order”). (ECF No. 92).

6

The court entered this order before the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate. (ECF No. 96).

7

Now, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, BANA requests that the court amend

8

and reenter its post-appeal summary judgment order and judgment “so they post-date the mandate

9

and expressly grant BANA judgment on Saticoy Bay’s quiet title counterclaim.” (ECF No. 97).

10

II.

Legal Standard

11

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), “[t]he court may correct a clerical

12

mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment,

13

order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). The rule further states that “[t]he court

14

may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a).

15

The difference between “‘clerical mistakes’ and mistakes that cannot be corrected pursuant

16

to Rule 60(a) is that the former consist of ‘blunders in execution’ whereas the latter consist of

17

instances where the court changes its mind.” Tattersalls, Ltd. v. DeHaven, 745 F.3d 1294, 1297

18

(9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987)).

19

III.

Discussion

20

BANA’s motion contains two separate requests for relief. First, BANA requests that the

21

court amend its order and judgment to “expressly resolve” Saticoy Bay’s quiet title counterclaim.

22

(ECF No. 97). Second, BANA requests that the court reenter its order and judgment so that they

23

post-date the Ninth Circuit’s mandate. Id. The court will address each request in turn.

24

a. Saticoy Bay’s quiet title counterclaim

25

In the post-appeal summary judgment order, the court “grant[ed] summary judgment on

26

BANA’s quiet title claim” and dismissed “all non-quiet title claims.” (ECF No. 92). The court

27

did not expressly address Saticoy Bay’s quiet title counterclaim. See id.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

Because the court granted summary judgment in favor of BANA on its quiet title claim,

2

there is no question that the court originally intended to also grant summary judgment in favor of

3

BANA on Saticoy Bay’s quiet title counterclaim. Because a grant of summary judgment in favor

4

of BANA on Saticoy Bay’s quiet title counterclaim does not deviate from the court’s original

5

intention, Rule 60(a) is the appropriate vehicle to correct its order. The post-appeal summary

6

judgment order (ECF No. 92) is therefore corrected, on page 8, lines 5–7, to state:

7

In light of the foregoing, the court will grant summary judgment in favor of BANA
on BANA’s quiet title claim and will grant summary judgment in favor of BANA
on Saticoy Bay’s quiet title counterclaim. The court will also dismiss all non-quiet
title claims as it has adjudicated all pertinent issues in this case.

8
9

b. Reentry of order and judgment
10
By issuing the post-appeal summary judgment order on April 15, 2019, the court complied
11
12

with the Ninth Circuit’s directive, but inadvertently entered the order before receiving the Ninth
Circuit’s mandate. (See ECF Nos. 92, 96).

13

“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers

14
jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects
15
of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58
16
(1982). Jurisdiction returns to the district court, for such proceedings as may be appropriate, upon
17
issuance of the mandate. See Johnson v. Bechtel Assoc. Prof’l Corp., 801 F.2d 412, 415 (D.C. Cir.
18
1986).
19
Because entry of the post-appeal summary judgment order before the mandate issued was
20
a mere oversight, Rule 60(a) is the appropriate vehicle for the court to order reentry of the post21
appeal summary judgment order and judgment. BANA is therefore instructed to prepare and file
22
a proposed order and judgment, consistent with the amendment set forth in section III.a above,
23
within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.
24
IV.

Conclusion

25
Accordingly,
26
27

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that BANA’s “motion to
amend and re-enter order and judgment” (ECF No. 97) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-

1
2
3
4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the post-appeal summary judgment order (ECF No. 92)
be, and the same hereby is, corrected, on page 8, lines 5–7, to state:
In light of the foregoing, the court will grant summary judgment in favor of BANA
on BANA’s quiet title claim and will grant summary judgment in favor of BANA
on Saticoy Bay’s quiet title counterclaim. The court will also dismiss all non-quiet
title claims as it has adjudicated all pertinent issues in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the April 15, 2019 entry of judgment (ECF No. 93) be,

6
and the same hereby is, VACATED.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BANA shall prepare and file a proposed order and
8
judgment, consistent with the amendment set forth in section III.a above, within fourteen (14) days
9
of the date of this order.
10
DATED March 3, 2020.
11
12

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-4-