U.s. Bank, N.a. v. Sfr Investments Pool 1, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
U.S. BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff-counter-
defendant-Appellee,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,
Defendant-counter-claimant-
Appellant.
No. 18-16006
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01128-GMN-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 10, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: BEA, COLLINS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”), which purchased the subject real
property at a foreclosure auction instituted by a homeowners’ association
(“HOA”), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against it and in
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
favor of U.S. Bank N.A., as Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-6, Asset-
Backed Certificates Series 2006-6 (“U.S. Bank”). Reviewing de novo, Berezovsky
v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923, 927 (9th Cir. 2017), we reverse.
The district court granted summary judgment to U.S. Bank based solely on
the ground that, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832
F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the HOA “foreclosed under a facially unconstitutional
notice scheme” and therefore the “HOA foreclosure cannot have extinguished”
U.S. Bank’s deed of trust on the property. This court recently held, however, that
Nevada’s HOA foreclosure scheme is not facially unconstitutional because our
decision in Bourne Valley was based on a construction of Nevada law that the
Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was erroneous. See Bank of Am.,
N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir.
2019) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev.
2018)).
The judgment in favor of U.S. Bank against SFR is REVERSED. The case
is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum
disposition.

-- 2 of 2 --