Bank of New York Mellon v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA ) 4 THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE ) FOR THE CERTIFCATEHOLDERS OF THE ) Case No.: 2:16-cv-00847-GMN-CWH 5 CWABS, INC. ASSET-BACKED ) CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-7, ) ORDER 6 ) 7 Plaintiff, ) vs. ) 8 ) SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; ) 9 MONTAGNE MARRON COMMUNITY ) 10 ASSOCIATION; ALESSI & KOENIG, LLC, ) ) 11 Defendants. ) ) 12 ) 13 SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, a ) Nevada limited liability company ) 14 ) Counter/Cross Claimant, ) 15 vs. ) 16 ) THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA ) 17 THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE ) FOR THE CERTIFCATEHOLDERS OF THE ) 18 CWABS, INC. ASSET-BACKED ) CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-7; and JOHN ) 19 EDWARD BOSTAPH, JR., an individual, ) 20 ) Counter/Cross ) 21 Defendants. ) 22 On April 18, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff The Bank of New 23 York Mellon (“Plaintiff”) because, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 24 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the Montagne Marron Community Association (“HOA”) 25 “foreclosed under a facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and therefore the “foreclosure sale 1 cannot have extinguished” Plaintiff’s deed of trust on the property. (Order 6:10–12, ECF No. 2 54). The Ninth Circuit has since held, however, that Nevada’s homeowner’s association 3 foreclosure scheme is not facially unconstitutional because the decision in Bourne Valley was 4 based on a construction of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear 5 was incorrect. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 6 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in 7 light of SFR Investments Pool1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)). 8 Moreover, for orders from this district that relied on Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo 9 Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and were thereafter appealed, the Ninth Circuit 10 recently began reversing and remanding such orders in light of Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington 11 W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019). See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A, v. 12 SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, No. 18-16006, 2019 WL 6817304, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 13 2019). 14 Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources, 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 54), is 16 VACATED. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of 18 this Order to file renewed dispositive motions. 19 The Clerk of Court shall reopen the case and deliver a copy of this Order to the United 20 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-15911. 21 22 DATED this _1__8__ day of December, 2019. 23 24 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 25 United States District Court