U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

Filing 37

ORDER Denying SFR's 13 Motion to Certify a Question of Law to the Nevada Supreme Court. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 8 U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., Case No. 2:16-cv-02604-JCM-PAL Plaintiff, 9 ORDER v. 10 11 SFR INVESTMENT POOL 1, LLC, Defendant. 12 13 Presently before the court is defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) motion 14 to certify a question of law to the Nevada Supreme Court. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff U.S. Bank 15 Trust, N.A. filed a response (ECF No. 24), and defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 26). 16 In the instant motion, SFR requests that the court certify the following question to the 17 Nevada Supreme Court: “Whether NRS § 116.31168(1)’s incorporation of NRS § 107.090 18 requires homeowners’ associations to provide notices of default to banks even when a bank does 19 not request notice?” (ECF No. 13 at 1). 20 The court declines to certify this question as controlling precedent is available for 21 guidance on this issue. The Ninth Circuit, in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, 22 NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016)—which SFR cites to in its motion—expressly answered this 23 exact question in the negative. More specifically, the Ninth Circuit held, in relevant part, as 24 follows: 25 26 27 28 Bourne Valley argues that Nevada Revised Statute section 116.31168(1), which incorporated section 107.090, mandated actual notice to mortgage lenders whose rights are subordinate to a homeowners’ association super priority lien. . . . According to Bourne Valley, this incorporation of section 107.090 means that foreclosing homeowners’ associations were required to provide notice to mortgage lenders even absent a request. .... If section 116.31168(1)’s incorporation of section 107.090 were to have required homeowners’ associations to provide notice of default to mortgage lenders even absent a request, section 116.31163 and section 116.31165 would have been meaningless. We reject Bourne Valley’s argument. 1 2 3 Bourne Valley, 832 F.3d at 1159. Thus, the court will deny SFR’s motion to certify this question to the Nevada Supreme 4 5 Court. 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that SFR’s motion to 8 9 certify (ECF No. 13) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. DATED THIS 1st day of May, 2017. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?