NPL3 Beneficial Interest Certificates, Series 2016-17NPL3 v. Sfr Investments Pool 1, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee, in Trust for
the Benefit of the Holders of Bayview
Opportunity Master Fund IVA REMIC Trust
2016-17NPL3 Beneficial Interest
Certificates, Series 2016-17NPL3,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-16682
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-01354-APG-EJY
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 12, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (SFR), the defendant in a quiet title action,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 16 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
appeals the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent
plaintiff U.S. Bank from non-judicially foreclosing on a property during the
pendency of the quiet title case. We have jurisdiction over the denial of preliminary
injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). “We review an order regarding
preliminary injunctive relief for abuse of discretion, but review any underlying
issues of law de novo.” Norbert v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 10 F.4th 918, 927
(9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180, 1198 (9th Cir. 2019)
(per curiam)). We affirm.
Even assuming that SFR, the defendant, may pursue preliminary injunctive
relief against U.S. Bank without having filed any claim against it, the district court
did not err in denying the requested preliminary injunction. A party seeking a
preliminary injunction “must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits,
[2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
[3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the
public interest.” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). The “[l]ikelihood of success on the merits is
‘the most important’ factor . . . .” Id. (omission in original) (quoting California v.
Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2018)).
The district court did not err in concluding that SFR has not demonstrated a
likelihood of success on the merits of its argument that U.S. Bank cannot non-

-- 2 of 3 --

3
judicially foreclose on the property at issue. SFR’s argument is that because U.S.
Bank’s quiet title action was allegedly untimely, U.S. Bank does not have an
enforceable security interest on which it can foreclose.
But as the district court correctly concluded, under Nevada law, whether U.S.
Bank’s quiet action title was timely has no bearing on whether it may pursue a non-
judicial foreclosure. See, e.g., Facklam v. HSBC Bank USA, 401 P.3d 1068, 1070
(Nev. 2017) (“For over 150 years, this court’s jurisprudence has provided that
lenders are not barred from foreclosing on mortgaged property merely because the
statute of limitations for contractual remedies on the note has passed.”); Stimpson v.
Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 944 F.3d 1190, 1199 (9th Cir. 2019) (noting that “[i]n
most states,” including Nevada, “a statute of limitations does not extinguish a party’s
rights, but merely precludes a judicial remedy”).
SFR provides no other reason why U.S Bank’s non-judicial foreclosure would
be improper. The district court therefore did not err in determining that SFR failed
to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Like the district court, we therefore
need not address the parties’ arguments concerning the other required elements for
preliminary injunctive relief.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --