DEUTSCHE BANK NAT'L TRUST V. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, No. 18-15326 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Morgan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-counterdefendant-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-15326 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00259-GMN-NJK MEMORANDUM* v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Defendant-counter-claimantcross-claimant-Appellant. 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). 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 this memorandum disposition. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
