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)

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