U.S. Bank v. Diamond Creek Community Association

D. Nevada

U.S. Bank v. Diamond Creek Community Association

DecidedDecember 18, 2019

Docket2:15-cv-01177

StatusUnknown

This text of U.S. Bank v. Diamond Creek Community Association (U.S. Bank v. Diamond Creek Community Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

U.S. Bank v. Diamond Creek Community Association, (D. Nev. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 U.S. BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR GSAA ) 4 HOME EQUITY TRUST 2006-9, ASSET- ) BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-9, ) Case No.: 2:15-cv-01177-GMN-NJK 5 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER 6 vs. ) 7 ) DIAMOND CREEK HOMEOWNERS’ ) 8 ASSOCIATION, et al., ) ) 9 Defendants. ) 10 11 On May 22, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff U.S. Bank, 12 (“Plaintiff”) because, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 13 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the Diamond Creek Community Association (“HOA”) “foreclosed under 14 a facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and therefore the “foreclosure sale cannot have 15 extinguished” Plaintiff’s deed of trust on the property. (Order 6:1–3, ECF No. 110). The Ninth 16 Circuit has since held, however, that Nevada’s homeowner’s association foreclosure scheme is 17 not facially unconstitutional because the decision in Bourne Valley was based on a construction 18 of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was incorrect. See Bank of 19 Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019) 20 (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR Investments 21 Pool1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)). Moreover, for orders 22 from this district that relied on Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 23 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and were thereafter appealed, the Ninth Circuit recently began reversing 24 and remanding such orders in light of Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners 25 1 Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019). See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A, v. SFR Investments Pool 1, 2 LLC, No. 18-16006, 2019 WL 6817304, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019). 3 Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 110), is 5 VACATED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of 7 this Order to file renewed dispositive motions. 8 The Clerk of Court shall reopen the case and deliver a copy of this Order to the United 9 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-16164. 10 11 DATED this __1_8__ day of December, 2019. 12 13 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 14 United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 U.S. BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR GSAA ) 4 HOME EQUITY TRUST 2006-9, ASSET- ) BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-9, ) Case No.: 2:15-cv-01177-GMN-NJK 5 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER 6 vs. ) 7 ) DIAMOND CREEK HOMEOWNERS’ ) 8 ASSOCIATION, et al., ) ) 9 Defendants. ) 10 11 On May 22, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff U.S. Bank, 12 (“Plaintiff”) because, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 13 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the Diamond Creek Community Association (“HOA”) “foreclosed under 14 a facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and therefore the “foreclosure sale cannot have 15 extinguished” Plaintiff’s deed of trust on the property. (Order 6:1–3, ECF No. 110). The Ninth 16 Circuit has since held, however, that Nevada’s homeowner’s association foreclosure scheme is 17 not facially unconstitutional because the decision in Bourne Valley was based on a construction 18 of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was incorrect. See Bank of 19 Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019) 20 (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR Investments 21 Pool1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)). Moreover, for orders 22 from this district that relied on Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 23 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and were thereafter appealed, the Ninth Circuit recently began reversing 24 and remanding such orders in light of Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners 25 1 Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019). See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A, v. SFR Investments Pool 1, 2 LLC, No. 18-16006, 2019 WL 6817304, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019). 3 Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 110), is 5 VACATED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of 7 this Order to file renewed dispositive motions. 8 The Clerk of Court shall reopen the case and deliver a copy of this Order to the United 9 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-16164. 10 11 DATED this __1_8__ day of December, 2019. 12 13 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 14 United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

U.S. Bank v. Diamond Creek Community Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-bank-v-diamond-creek-community-association-nvd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack