Bank of America, N.A. v. Riverwalk Ranch Crossing Homeowners Association et al

Filing 29

ORDER Denying Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's 23 Motion to Certify a Question of Law to Nevada's Supreme Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 12/8/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,

4

Plaintiffs,
5

vs.
6
7
8
9
10
11

RIVERWALK RANCH CROSSING
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.,

2:16-cv-02219-JCM-VCF
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CERTIFY
A QUESTION OF LAW TO NEVADA’S
SUPREME COURT (ECF No. 23)

Defendants.
Before the court is Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion to Certify a Question of
Law to Nevada’s Supreme Court. (ECF No. 23). No opposition has been filed.
Movant proposes certification of the following question:

Whether NRS § 116.31168(1)’s

12

incorporation of NRS § 107.090 requires homeowners’ associations to provide notices of default to banks

13

even when a bank does not request notice. Movant argues that an answer to this question will be

14

determinative of part of this case and will settle important questions of law.

15

As movant notes in its points and authorities, the Ninth Circuit construed NRS § 116.31168(1)’s

16

incorporation of NRS § 107.090 as not requiring associations “to provide notice of default to mortgage

17

lenders even absent a request . . . .” Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154,

18

1159 (9th Cir. 2016). Movant argues that the Ninth Circuit incorrectly “acted as though there is not

19

controlling Nevada precedent on NRS § 116.31168(1)’s meaning.” (ECF No. 23 at p. 2-3).

20

Movant cites no authority for this court to review the soundness of decisions rendered by the Ninth

21

Circuit. On this record, the certification requested would not be appropriate. Given the volume of state

22

court litigation activity concerning these super-priority lien disputes, it is hard to see how certification of

23
24
25

1

this question is necessary.

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion to Certify a

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. 23) is DENIED.
DATED this 8th day of December, 2016.
_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE