Sfr Investments Pool 1 v. Phh Mortgage

 VACATE the portion of the order denying preliminary
injunctive relief, REVERSE the portion of the order granting the motion to
dismiss, AND REMAND this matter for proceedings consistent with this
order.
Piedlett
Pickering
riact.-- J.
Saitta
PARRAGUIRRE, J., concurring:
For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v.
U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree
that respondent lost its lien priority by virtue• of the homeowners
association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR
Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the
disposition of this appeal.
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Howard Kim & Associates
Malcolm Cisneros/Irvine CA
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A Are(4