Bank of America, N.A. v. Carson Ranch East Homeowners Association

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 3, 2019
• Docket: 2:16-cv-02192
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

222 333 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

444 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

555 * * *

666 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR Case No. 2:16-cv-02192-MMD-CWH BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS 777 SERVICING, LP f\k\a COUNTRYWIDE ORDER HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., 888 Plaintiff, 999 v.

111000 CARSON RANCH EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., 111111 Defendants. 111222 111333 I. SUMMARY 111444 In a prior order (ECF No. 67 (the “Order”)), the Court found that Plaintiff Bank of 111555 America, N.A.’s deed of trust (“DOT”) still encumbers the property commonly known as 111666 5844 Karnes Ranch Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89131 (the “Property”), even though 111777 defendant Carson Ranch East Homeowners Association (“HOA”) foreclosed on it, and 111888 sold it to defendant Premier One Holdings, Inc. (“Premier”) at a foreclosure sale held on 111999 September 17, 2013 (the “HOA Sale”)—because the federal foreclosure bar prevented 222000 the DOT from being extinguished. (ECF No. 67.) Before the Court is Premier’s motion for 222111 reconsideration of the Order (“Motion”).1 (ECF No. 76.) Because the Court is 222222 unpersuaded it should reconsider the Order, and as further explained below, the Court 222333 will deny the Motion. 222444 II. LEGAL STANDARD 222555 A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should 222666 reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to 222777 11 persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 22 2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is 33 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 44 was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. 55 No. 1J v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). But “[a] motion for reconsideration 66 is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court 77 already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 88 2005). 99 III. DISCUSSION 1100 Premier argues that reconsideration is warranted because of JPMorgan Chase 1111 Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 433 P.3d 263, 2019 WL 292823 (Nev. 2019) 1122 (“JPMorgan”). Assuming JPMorgan constitutes intervening law,2 the Court will not 1133 reconsider the Order based on JPMorgan. 1144 As Plaintiff points out (ECF No. 80 at 2, 3), this Court has already considered and 1155 rejected Premier’s reading of JPMorgan. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Huffaker Hills Unit No. 1166 2 Residence Assoc., Case No. 3:15-cv-502-MMD-WGC, 2019 WL 1261351, at *3 n.3 (D. 1177 Nev. Mar. 19, 2019) (“Huffaker Hills”) (currently on appeal). To briefly reiterate, the Court 1188 distinguishes JPMorgan from this case because JPMorgan dealt with a declaration 1199 prepared by a Chase bank employee containing statements that could not be true, 2200 whereas the Order relied on a declaration from Graham Babin, an Assistant Vice 2211 President at Fannie Mae (the “Babin Declaration”), which does not contain any 2222

2233 2The Nevada Supreme Court’s unpublished disposition in JPMorgan was filed on January 17, 2019, which was after Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was fully briefed 2244 (ECF No. 66 (filed August 27, 2018)), but before the Court issued the Order (on February 4, 2019). Thus, Premier could have filed a motion for leave to file supplemental authority 2255 based on JPMorgan before the Court issued the Order, but did not. Moreover, as an 2266 unpublished disposition, JPMorgan does not bind this Court on questions of Nevada law. See Nev. R. App. P. 36(c)(2) (“An unpublished disposition, while publicly available, does 2277 not establish mandatory precedent except in a subsequent stage of a case in which the unpublished disposition was entered, in a related case, or in any case for purposes of 2288 issue or claim preclusion or to establish law of the case.”). 11 statements that cannot be true. (ECF No. 54-3.) See also Huffaker Hills, 2019 WL 22 1261351, at *3 n.3. 33 Further, and to the extent that Premier attacks the validity of the Babin Declaration 44 (ECF No. 76 at 6), the Court has considered and rejected nearly identical challenges to 55 very similar declarations from Babin several times. See, e.g., Ditech Fin. LLC v. Las 66 Vegas Dev. Grp., LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00351-MMD-CBC, 2019 WL 4168733, at *1, *3- 77 *4 (D. Nev. Sept. 3, 2019); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Casoleil Homeowners Ass’n, Case No. 88 3:16-cv-00307-MMD-WGC, 2019 WL 2601555, at *1, *4 (D. Nev. June 25, 2019) 99 (currently on appeal). The Ninth Circuit has also rejected similar challenges to similar 1100 evidence. See Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923, 932-33 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding 1111 business records provided by Freddie Mac sufficient evidence of its property interest); 1122 see also Williston Inv. Grp., LLC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 736 F. App’x 168, 169 1133 (9th Cir. 2018) (same). The Court therefore rejects Premier’s arguments regarding the 1144 Babin Declaration. 1155 In sum, the Court will deny the Motion. 1166 IV. CONCLUSION 1177 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several 1188 cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and 1199 determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the 2200 Motion. 2211 It is therefore ordered that Premier’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 76) is 2222 denied. 2233 DATED THIS 3rd day of October 2019. 2244

2255 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2266 2277 2288