Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Foothills at Southern Highlands Homeowners Association ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST ) 4 COMPANY, as Trustee for the Holders of the ) GSAMP Trust 2005-SEA2, ) Case No.: 2:16-cv-00245-GMN-PAL 5 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER 6 vs. ) 7 ) THE FOOTHILLS AT SOUTHERN ) 8 HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ) ASSOCIATION, et al., ) 9 ) 10 Defendants. ) ) 11 ) SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, ) 12 ) 13 Counter/Cross-Claimaint, ) vs. ) 14 ) DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST ) 15 COMPANY, as Trustee for the Holders of the ) 16 GSAMP Trust 2005-SEA2, et al., ) ) 17 Counter/Cross- ) Defendants. ) 18 19 On July 27, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff Deutsche Bank 20 National Trust Company (“Plaintiff”) because, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo 21 Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the Foothills At Southern Highlands Homeowners 22 Association (“HOA”) “foreclosed under a facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and 23 therefore the “foreclosure sale cannot have extinguished” Plaintiff’s deed of trust on the 24 property. (Order 9:4–6, ECF No. 81). The Ninth Circuit has since held, however, that Nevada’s 25 homeowner’s association foreclosure scheme is not facially unconstitutional because the 1 decision in Bourne Valley was based on a construction of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme 2 Court has since made clear was incorrect. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight 3 Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no 4 longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR Investments Pool1, LLC v. Bank of New York 5 Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)). Moreover, for orders from this district that relied on 6 Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and were 7 thereafter appealed, the Ninth Circuit recently began reversing and remanding such orders in 8 light of Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th 9 Cir. 2019). See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A, v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, No. 18-16006, 2019 WL 10 6817304, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019). 11 Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 81), is 13 VACATED. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of 15 this Order to file renewed dispositive motions. 16 The Clerk of Court shall reopen the case and deliver a copy of this Order to the United 17 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-16619. 18 19 DATED this __1_8__ day of December, 2019. 20 21 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 22 United States District Court 23 24 25