Bank of Am. v. Remington Place Homeowners' Ass'n

1

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP Plaintiff, v. REMINGTON PLACE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, et al. Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-00475-RFB-EJY

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 28, 2022

ORDER

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are two motions: Defendant-Counter-Claimant 9060 Boston Springs Trust's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 107 and Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant Bank of America N.A.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 108. For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendant-Counter-Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment and grants PlaintiffCounter-Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) sued Defendants Remington Place Homeowners Association (“HOA”), 9060 Boston Springs Trust (“Boston Springs”), and Absolute Collection Services, LLC (“ACS”) on March 4, 2016. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges four causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all Defendants (2) breach of Nevada Revised Statute § 116.113 against Defendants HOA and ACS, (3) wrongful foreclosure against Defendants HOA and ACS, and (4) injunctive relief against Defendant Boston Springs. Id.

Plaintiff BANA filed a notice of lis pendens on March 4, 2016. ECF No. 3. Defendant HOA filed an answer on March 15, 2016. ECF No. 6. Defendant ACS filed an answer on March 26, 2016. ECF No. 8.

On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff BANA filed a Motion for Summary judgment on its claims against all Defendants. ECF No. 20. On February 28, 2017, Defendant Boston Springs answered Plaintiff BANA's Complaint, including a one counterclaim for declaratory relief/quiet title. ECF No. 33. On April 5, 2017, the Court stayed the litigation pursuant to pending U.S. Supreme Court appeals in Bourne Valley Court Tr v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2016) and Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 5, 2017 WL 398426 (Nev. Jan. 26, 2017). ECF No. 40. Accordingly, Plaintiff BANA's summary judgment motion was denied without prejudice to refiling once the stay was lifted. Id.

On April 8, 2019, the Court lifted the stay pending the litigation. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff BANA filed its answer to Defendant Boston Springs's counter claim. ECF No. 53. Plaintiff BANA subsequently filed a partial motion for summary judgment on its quiet title/declaratory judgment claim and Defendant Boston Springs's counterclaim. ECF No. 56. Opposition and reply were filed ECF Nos. 60, 62. In turn, Defendant Boston Springs filed its own motion for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiff BANA's claims were time barred. ECF No. 57. Opposition and reply were filed as well. ECF Nos. 59, 64.

On August 14, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff BANA's motion for partial summary judgment. ECF Nos. 70, 71. Specifically, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff BANA's quiet title/declaratory judgment claim and declared that Plaintiff BANA's deed of trust remained an encumbrance on the property at the time of the foreclosure sale. Id. The Court, finding that the declaratory relief requested was dispositive, dismissed the remaining claims as moot. Id. It then denied Defendant Boston Springs's motion for summary judgment. Id.^[1]

Defendant Boston Springs appealed from the Court's decision granting Plaintiff BANA's summary judgment with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 13, 2019. ECF No. 80. The Ninth Circuit then, on February 12, 2021, issued an order vacating the Court's decision and remanding for it to determine whether the Court had jurisdiction over Plaintiff BANA's claims. ECF Nos. 87, 88. The Ninth Circuit, without deciding the merits of Defendant Boston Springs's appeal, concluded that it could not determine from the record whether there was complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. In response, the Court ordered a Status Conference concerning jurisdictional discovery. ECF No. 90. At the May 5, 2021 hearing, the Court directed Plaintiff BANA to either file a motion to amend its Complaint or a motion for jurisdictional discovery. ECF No. 97.

Plaintiff BANA complied, filing its Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint on May 19, 2021, ECF No. 98, and a response and reply followed, ECF Nos. 99, 100. Plaintiff BANA's motion also requested that it be permitted jurisdictional discovery. ECF No. 98. On November 22, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff BANA's motion. ECF No. 106. It granted the motion as it pertained to amending the Complaint's jurisdictional pleadings. Id. It, however, concluded that there was sufficient evidence within the motion to establish the jurisdiction of the Court in diversity and that further jurisdictional discovery was unnecessary. Id.

Defendant Boston Springs filed its instant motion for summary judgment on December 14, 2021, contending that, under the new standard decided by 7510 Perla Del Mar Ave Tr. v. Bank of Am., N.A. (“Perla”), 458 P.3d 348 (Nev. 2020), Plaintiff BANA cannot show that its tender obligation for the HOA's superpriority lien was excused. ECF No. 107. Opposition and reply were filed as well. ECF Nos. 109, 112. A week later, Plaintiff BANA filed its own motion for summary judgment, concerning, inter alia, the issue of futility of tender. ECF No. 108. Opposition and reply were also filed. ECF Nos. 110, 111. A hearing on these cross-motions for summary judgment was held on June 30, 2022. ECF No. 114.

This Order follows.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court makes the following findings of undisputed and disputed facts.^[2]

a. Undisputed Facts

James Munford purchased the property at 9060 Boston Springs Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89149 by obtaining a $227,410 loan on January 28, 2008. The loan was secured by a deed of trust naming Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as the original beneficiary. In June 2011, MERS assigned the deed of trust to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, which merged into BANA, in July 2011. Defendant HOA, through its agent Absolute Collection Services, LLC (ACS), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien on June 15, 2011. The total amount owed was $875.40. Defendant HOA, also through its agent Defendant ACS, next recorded a notice of default election to sell on October 14, 2011. The amount owed was now listed as $1,852.80.

In November 2011, Plaintiff BANA sent a letter to Defendant ACS requesting the superpriority amount through its counsel, at the time, Miles Bauer Bergstrom & Winter LLP. Defendant ACS sent a response dated February 3, 2012, stating that it would not send a Statement of Account until after the foreclosure had proceeded. Defendant HOA, through Defendant ACS, recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale on March 23, 2012, with sale scheduled on May 15, 2012. The foreclosure sale was scheduled for August 14, 2012, and Defendant Boston Springs purchased the property for $6,900.00.

b. Disputed Facts

The parties dispute the legal effect of the facts.

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When considering the propriety of summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2014).

If the movant has carried its burden, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is improper for the Court to resolve genuine factual disputes or make credibility determinations at the summary judgment stage. Zetwick v. Cty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).

V. DISCUSSION

a. Diversity Jurisdiction

The Court, as it did at the November 22, 2021 hearing, concludes that it has jurisdiction of this case in diversity. See 28 U.S. Code § 1653; NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612-13 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Courts may permit parties to amend defective allegations of jurisdiction at any stage in the proceedings.”). To establish complete diversity for federal jurisdictional purposes each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332). “[A] corporation is a citizen only of (1) the state where its principal place of business is located, and (2) the state in which it is incorporated.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, a limited liability company is a “citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Id.

Here Plaintiff BANA's principal place of business is, and, as reflected in its articles of incorporation, has its main office in North Carolina. Thus, it is a citizen of North Carolina. On the other hand, Defendant Boston Springs is a Nevada trust, and its only trustee is a citizen of Nevada. Second, Defendant HOA has its principal place of business, and is incorporated, in Nevada. Finally, Defendant ACS, as a limited...