Federal National Mortgage Association v. Villas at Huntington Homeowners Association et al

Filing 39

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 36 the HOA's motion to amend judgment be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 34 the 6/14/18 entry of judgment be, and the same hereby is, VACATED. The HOA is inst ructed to prepare and file a proposed judgment, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, that enters judgment in favor of Fannie Mae on its second cause of action against RH Kids only and indicates that all remaining claims and crossclaims are dismissed as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/3/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

Case No. 2:16-CV-2968 JCM (GWF)
ORDER

Plaintiff(s),

9
v.

10
11

VILLAS AT HUNTINGTON HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

12

Defendant(s).

13
14

Presently before the court is defendant Villas at Huntington Homeowners Association’s

15

(“HOA”) motion to amend judgment. (ECF No. 36). Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage

16

Association (“Fannie Mae”) filed a nonopposition response (ECF No. 37), to which the HOA

17

replied (ECF No. 38). No other party filed a response and the time to do so has passed.

18

I.

Background

19

On December 22, 2016, Fannie May filed a complaint alleging eight (8) causes of action:

20

(1) declaratory relief pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 4716(j)(3) against defendant RH Kids, LLC (“RH

21

Kids”); (2) quiet title pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 4716(j)(3) against RH Kids; (3) declaratory relief

22

under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution against all

23

defendants; (4) quiet title under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

24

Constitution against RH Kids; (5) declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS

25

40.010, and NRS 30.040 against RH Kids; (6) breach of NRS 116.1113 against the HOA and Red

26

Rock; (7) wrongful foreclosure against the HOA and Red Rock; and (8) injunctive relief against

27

RH Kids. (ECF No. 1).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

On January 24, 2017, the HOA filed a crossclaim alleging six (6) causes of action against

2

Red Rock: (1) implied indemnity; (2) contribution; (3) apportionment; (4) express indemnity; (5)

3

breach of contract; and (6) declaratory relief. (ECF No. 8). On February 14, 2017, Red Rock filed

4

a crossclaim alleging six (6) causes of action against the HOA: (1) implied indemnity; (2)

5

contribution; (3) apportionment; (4) express indemnity; (5) breach of contract; and (6) declaratory

6

relief. (ECF No. 14).

7

On September 19, 2017, Fannie Mae filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF

8

No. 23). On June 14, 2018, the court entered an order granting summary judgment on Fannie

9

Mae’s second cause of action and directing the clerk to enter judgment and close the case. Id. The

10

court dismissed Fannie Mae’s first, third, fifth, and eighth causes of action for declaratory and

11

injunctive relief for failing to state a substantive cause of action. (ECF No. 33). With regard to

12

Fannie Mae’s fourth (quiet title) cause of action, the court held the following: “Given the court’s

13

holding on Fannie Mae’s § 4617(j)(3) quiet title cause of action, the court need not address Fannie

14

Mae’s additional arguments in favor of its claim for quiet title, which are pled in the alternative.”

15

Id. The court did not expressly address Fannie Mae’s sixth (breach of NRS 116.1113) and seventh

16

(wrongful foreclosure) causes of action. See id. The court also did not expressly address the

17

crossclaims the HOA and Red Rock asserted against each other. See id.

18

Now, the HOA requests that the court amend the judgment (ECF No. 34) to state that the

19

judgment is entered only against RH Kids and that all of the parties’ remaining claims and

20

crossclaims are dismissed as moot. (ECF No. 36).

21

II.

Legal Standard

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

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

2

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

3

III.

Discussion

4

The HOA contends that the court directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case

5

because it intended to dismiss Fannie Mae’s remaining sixth and seventh causes of action against

6

the HOA and Red Rock as moot. (ECF No. 36). The HOA further contends that the HOA and

7

Red Rock’s crossclaims are based on a request for indemnity with regard to Fannie Mae’s sixth

8

and seventh causes of action, such that the crossclaims became moot upon dismissal of Fannie

9

Mae’s sixth and seventh causes of action. Id.
Fannie Mae responds that it does not object to entry of an amended judgment on its quiet

10
11

title claim against RH Kids only and dismissal of its remaining claims as moot. (ECF No. 37).

12

In granting summary judgment in favor of Fannie Mae on its second cause of action, the

13

court intended that judgment be entered against RH Kids only (the only defendant named in Fannie

14

Mae’s first and second causes of action). Accordingly, when the court instructed the clerk to enter

15

judgment and close the case, the court originally intended to dismiss Fannie Mae’s sixth and

16

seventh causes of action as moot. In so doing, the court also intended to dismiss the HOA and Red

17

Rock’s crossclaims as moot, as indemnity was no longer at issue.

18

Because entry of an amended judgment entering judgment as to RH Kids only, dismissing

19

Fannie Mae’s sixth and seventh causes of action as moot, and dismissing the HOA and Red Rock’s

20

crossclaims as moot does not deviate from the court’s original intention, Rule 60(a) is an

21

appropriate vehicle to correct the judgment. Further, neither Fannie Mae nor any defendant

22

opposes the HOA’s motion. The HOA is therefore instructed to prepare and file a proposed

23

judgment, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, that enters judgment in favor of

24

Fannie Mae on its second cause of action against RH Kids only and indicates that all remaining

25

claims and crossclaims are dismissed as moot.

26

...

27

...

28

...

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-

1

IV.

Conclusion

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the HOA’s motion to

4

amend judgment (ECF No. 36) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the June 14, 2018 entry of judgment (ECF No. 34) be,

5
6

and the same hereby is, VACATED.

7

The HOA is instructed to prepare and file a proposed judgment, within fourteen (14) days

8

of the date of this order, that enters judgment in favor of Fannie Mae on its second cause of action

9

against RH Kids only and indicates that all remaining claims and crossclaims are dismissed as

10
11
12
13

moot.
DATED March 3, 2020.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-4-