Eagle Investors v. Bank of America, N.A.

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, the Court expresses its willingness to 5 reconsider or vacate its prior Order, (ECF No. 133).1 Accordingly, if the Court of Appeals for 6 the Ninth Circuit remands this case in light of this Order, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of 8 remand to file renewed dispositive motions. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s prior order, (ECF No. 137), is now 10 amended to conform with this Order. 11 The Clerk of Court shall deliver a copy of this Order to the United States Court of 12 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-15631. — 13 — 14 DATED this __2_3__ day of December, 2019. — 15 — 16 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge — 17 — United States District Court — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — 21 1 The Court previously vacated its Order, (ECF No. 133), through a later Order filed on December 18, 2019. (See Order, ECF No. 137). However, because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the aspects of the case properly 22 involved in the current appeal, the Court now AMENDS the December 18, 2019 Order, (ECF No. 137), in part to indicate the Court’s willingness to reconsider or vacate the prior judgment upon remand pursuant to Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (holding that the filing of a notice of appeal “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its 24 control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal”); Mendia v. Garcia, 874 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) (remanding to district court to permit reconsideration of the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 and 25 Fed. R. App. P. 12.1).