Bank of America, N.A. v. Desert Canyon Homeowners Association et al

Filing 114

ORDER dismissing as moot SFR's crossclaims against Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC; denying as moot ECF No. 112 SFR's motion for default judgment; dismissing as moot SFR's counterclaim against Bank of America, N.A.; dismissing as moot SFR's crossclaims against Adrian Goering and Timothy Goering; and directing Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with this and the Court's prior order (ECF No. 111 ), and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/27/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

7

Plaintiff,
v.

8
9

Case No. 2:17-cv-00663-MMD-NJK
ORDER

DESERT CANYON HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION; et al.,

10

Defendants.

11

AND ALL RELATED CASES

12

I.

SUMMARY

13

This case arises from the foreclosure sale of property to satisfy a homeowners’

14

association lien. Before the Court are: (1) Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s

15

(“SFR”) status report (“Status Report”) (ECF No. 113) responding to this Court’s prior

16

order (ECF No. 111 at 9); and (2) SFR’s motion for default judgment (“Default Judgment

17

Motion”) (ECF No. 112). Because the Court agrees with SFR—as stated in the Status

18

Report—that its crossclaims against Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (“Bayview”) are moot,

19

it will dismiss those claims. As further explained below, the Court will also deny the Default

20

Judgment Motion as moot, in addition to dismissing both SFR’s crossclaims against

21

Adrian Goering and Timothy Goering (“Borrowers”), and counterclaim against Counter

22

Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), as moot in light of the Court’s prior order

23

declaring that the applicable deed of trust survived the pertinent homeowners’ association

24

foreclosure sale (ECF No. 111 at 9).

25

///

26

///

27
28

1

II.

STATUS REPORT

2

As a preliminary matter, the Court agrees with SFR’s assessment in its Status

3

Report that its crossclaims against Bayview are moot. (ECF No. 113 at 2.) The Court will

4

therefore dismiss SFR’s crossclaims against Bayview as moot.

5

III.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTION

6

SFR asserts the same counterclaim against BANA and crossclaims against

7

Borrowers1—seeking a declaration in its first claim for relief that the HOA Sale

8

extinguished the DOT.2 (ECF No. 37 at 16-17.) The Court previously found that BANA’s

9

DOT survived the foreclosure sale and continues to encumber the property.3 (ECF No.

10

111 at 9.)

11

In the Default Judgment Motion, SFR seeks a “declaration and determination that

12

[Borrowers and], any successors and assigns, have no right, title or interest in the

13

Property[,]” and “that SFR is the rightful title owner.” (ECF Nos. 112 at 3, 112-10 at 3.)

14

But the Court cannot grant SFR the relief it seeks in its Default Judgment Motion in light

15

of its prior ruling. (ECF No. 111.) BANA indisputably has an interest in the property by

16

virtue of the Court’s prior ruling—its DOT continues to encumber the property. (Id. at 9.)

17

The Court will thus exercise its discretion to deny the Default Judgment Motion. In

18

addition, and because, as explained above, SFR cannot obtain the relief it seeks against

19
20
1

21
22
23

Borrowers at one point had an interest in the property at the heart of this case—
they bought the house by obtaining a loan secured by a corresponding deed of trust
(“DOT”) now owned by BANA. (ECF Nos. 112 at 2, 111 at 2.)
SFR’s second claim is not a stand-alone claim but is instead essentially a
requested remedy—for preliminary and permanent injunction. (ECF No. 37 at 17.)
2

24
3

25
26
27

Indeed, in its motion for summary judgment—which the Court denied—SFR
sought summary judgment against both BANA and Borrowers, although SFR also
asserted that it was moving on BANA’s claims. (ECF No. 89 at 2, 25.) Regardless, the
Court denied SFR’s motion and granted BANA’s motion, finding against SFR on its
requested relief in its counterclaim and crossclaims when the Court declared the HOA
Sale extinguished the DOT. (ECF No. 111 at 9.)

28
2

1

Borrowers in light of the Court’s prior order, the Court will dismiss SFR’s crossclaims

2

against Borrowers as moot.

3

For the same reason, the Court will also dismiss SFR’s counterclaims against

4

BANA as moot to the extent the prior order is unclear as to resolution of SFR’s

5

counterclaims. That resolves the remaining issues in this case.

6

IV.

CONCLUSION

7

The Court notes that SFR made several arguments and cited to several cases not

8

discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines

9

that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

the Court.
It is therefore ordered that SFR’s crossclaims against Bayview Loan Servicing,
LLC are dismissed as moot.
It is further ordered that SFR’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 112) is denied
as moot.
It is further ordered that SFR’s counterclaim against Bank of America, N.A. is
dismissed as moot.
It is further ordered that SFR’s crossclaims against Adrian Goering and Timothy
Goering are dismissed as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this and the
Court’s prior order (ECF No. 111), and close this case.
DATED THIS 27th day of June 2019.

22
23
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3