JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying 44 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/2/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:16-CV-1677 JCM (GWF)
ORDER

v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) motion

14

for partial summary judgment under the return doctrine. (ECF No. 44). The court finds no

15

response necessary and further finds the motion properly resolved without oral argument. See LR

16

78-1.

17

In its motion, SFR moves for an order that “post-Bourne Valley [Court Trust v. Wells Fargo

18

Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016)], under the Return Doctrine, NRS Chapter 116’s ‘notice

19

scheme’ ‘returns’ to its 1991 version.” (ECF No. 44).1

20

In essence, SFR requests that this court issue an advisory opinion, which Article III

21

prohibits. See, e.g., Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 745–46 (1998). Specifically, the United

22

States Supreme Court has held, in relevant part, as follows:

23
24
25

[T]he Article III prohibition against advisory opinions reflects the complementary
constitutional considerations expressed by the justiciability doctrine: Federal
judicial power is limited to those disputes which confine federal courts to a rule
consistent with a system of separated powers and which are traditionally thought to
be capable of resolution through the judicial process.

26
27
The “return doctrine” provides that an unconstitutional statute is no law and the previous
constitutional version of the law is revived when it is struck down. See, e.g., We the People Nev.
ex rel. Angle v. Miller, 192 P.3d 1166, 1176 (Nev. 2008).
1

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 97 (1968).

2

Therefore, the court will deny SFR’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 44).

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that SFR’s motion for partial

5

summary judgment under the return doctrine (ECF No. 44) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

6
7
8

DATED August 2, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-