Eagle Investors v. Bank of America, N.A. ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 EAGLE INVESTORS, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:14-cv-00123-GMN-NJK 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 10 On March 29, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants Bank of 11 America, N.A., successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide 12 Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BANA”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Company 13 System, Inc. (“MERS”) (collectively “Defendants”) because, under Bourne Valley Court Trust 14 v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the Northern Terrace Homeowners 15 Association (“HOA”) “foreclosed under a facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and 16 therefore the “foreclosure sale cannot have extinguished” Plaintiff’s deed of trust on the 17 property. (Order 6:15–17, ECF No. 133). The Ninth Circuit has since held, however, that 18 Nevada’s homeowner’s association foreclosure scheme is not facially unconstitutional because 19 the decision in Bourne Valley was based on a construction of Nevada law that the Nevada 20 Supreme Court has since made clear was incorrect. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. 21 Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that Bourne 22 Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR Investments Pool1, LLC v. Bank of New 23 York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)). Moreover, for orders from this district that relied on 24 Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and were 25 thereafter appealed, the Ninth Circuit recently began reversing and remanding such orders in 1 light of Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th 2 Cir. 2019). See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A, v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, No. 18-16006, 2019 WL 3 6817304, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019). 4 Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 133), is 6 VACATED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of 8 this Order to file renewed dispositive motions. 9 The Clerk of Court shall reopen the case and deliver a copy of this Order to the United 10 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-15631. 11 12 DATED this _1_8___ day of December, 2019. 13 14 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25