Bank of America, N.A. v. Aliante Master Association ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ) 4 ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No.: 2:16-cv-02258-GMN-CWH 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 ALIANTE MASTER ASSOCIATION; SFR ) 7 INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; NEVADA ) ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., ) 8 ) Defendants. ) 9 ) 10 ) SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, ) 11 ) Counter/Cross Claimant, ) 12 vs. ) 13 ) BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; ALBERT C. ) 14 SMITH, an individual; and DAWN D. SMITH, ) an individual, ) 15 Counter/Cross ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 18 On May 8, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff Bank of America, 19 N.A. (“Plaintiff”) because, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 20 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the Aliante Master Association (“HOA”) “foreclosed under a 21 facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and therefore the “foreclosure sale cannot have 22 extinguished” Plaintiff’s deed of trust on the property. (Order 6:23–25, ECF No. 100). The 23 Ninth Circuit has since held, however, that Nevada’s homeowner’s association foreclosure 24 scheme is not facially unconstitutional because the decision in Bourne Valley was based on a 25 construction of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was incorrect. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 1 2019) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR 2 Investments Pool1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)). Moreover, 3 for orders from this district that relied on Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 4 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and were thereafter appealed, the Ninth Circuit recently began 5 reversing and remanding such orders in light of Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight 6 Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019). See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A, v. SFR 7 Investments Pool 1, LLC, No. 18-16006, 2019 WL 6817304, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019). 8 Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources, 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 100), is 10 VACATED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of 12 this Order to file renewed dispositive motions. 13 The Clerk of Court shall reopen the case and deliver a copy of this Order to the United 14 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-16057. 15 16 DATED this __1_8__ day of December, 2019. 17 18 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 19 United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25