Eagle Investors v. Bank of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EAGLE INVESTORS, No. 14-15507
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No.
2:14-cv-00123-GMN-NJK
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NA; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 17, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Eagle Investors, a Nevada corporation, appeals from the district court’s order
denying its motion for a preliminary injunction in this diversity action. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We vacate and remand.
The district court erred in concluding that Eagle Investors has not shown a
likelihood of irreparable harm. Where, as here, a right of action arises under state
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
law, state law must also govern the extent to which damages are available to
vindicate that right. See Clausen v. M/V New Carissa, 339 F.3d 1049, 1064-65 (9th
Cir. 2003); Begay v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 682 F.2d 1311, 1317-18 (9th Cir. 1982).
Under Nevada law, “real property and its attributes are considered unique and loss of
real property rights generally results in irreparable harm”—that is, harm that cannot
be adequately remedied through money damages. Dixon v. Thatcher, 742 P.2d
1029, 1030 (Nev. 1987) (per curiam); see also Hamm v. Arrowcreek Homeowners’
Ass’n, 183 P.3d 895, 901 (Nev. 2008) (en banc) (“[H]arm is ‘irreparable’ if it cannot
adequately be remedied by compensatory damages.”). The Nevada Supreme Court
has viewed the loss of real property as irreparable harm even where the real
property’s putative owner is a corporate entity, and where the real property is to be
used for a commercial purpose. See Thirteen S. Ltd. v. Summit Vill., Inc., 866 P.2d
257, 259 (Nev. 1993) (per curiam); Stoltz v. Grimm, 689 P.2d 927, 930 (Nev. 1984)
(per curiam). Thus, under Nevada law, Eagle Investors’ loss of real property would
constitute irreparable harm.
We VACATE the district court’s order denying Eagle Investors’ motion for a
preliminary injunction, and REMAND so that the district court can consider the
remaining preliminary injunction factors in the first instance. See Winter v. Natural
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
VACATED and REMANDED. Appellees shall bear costs on appeal.
2