Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I… v. Sfr Investments Pool 1, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley
ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE8
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2006-HE8,
Plaintiff-counter-
defendant-Appellee,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,
Defendant-counter-claimant-
cross-claimant-Appellant.
No. 18-15326
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-00259-GMN-NJK
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”) appeals the district court’s grant of
* 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
DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
summary judgment against it and in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE8
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE8 (“Deutsche Bank”).
Reviewing de novo, Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923, 927 (9th Cir. 2017), we
reverse.
The district court granted summary judgment to Deutsche Bank solely on the
ground that, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d
1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the homeowners’ association (“HOA”) “foreclosed under a
facially unconstitutional notice scheme.” The Ninth Circuit recently held 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, 623–24 (9th Cir.
2019) (“Arlington West”) (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) (“Star Hill”)).1
The judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank against SFR is REVERSED. In
addition, the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of SFR’s crossclaims is
REVERSED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with
1 Neither Arlington West nor Star Hill is an advisory opinion.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
this memorandum disposition. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --