LAS VEGAS CASINO CORPORATION V. NEWREZ, LLC, No. 21-16490 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 7 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LAS VEGAS CASINO CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 21-16490 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01658-RFB-DJA v. NEWREZ, LLC, DBA Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 5, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: KELLY,*** IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. * 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). *** The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. Las Vegas Casino Corporation (Las Vegas) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the district court’s decision de novo. See In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). We reject Las Vegas’s claim that the ten-year period, see Nev. Rev. Stat. § 106.240, elapsed as to Shellpoint’s deed of trust because Shellpoint’s Notice of Rescission cancelled any prior acceleration and reset the ten-year clock. See SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank N.A. (“Gotera”), 507 P.3d 194, 196–197 & n.4 (2022). Las Vegas’s arguments seeking to distinguish Gotera are unpersuasive. Because we affirm on the grounds decided by the district court, we do not consider the alternative grounds raised by Shellpoint on appeal.1 AFFIRMED. 1 We deny Las Vegas’s motion to stay the appeal pending the Nevada Supreme Court’s disposition in Gotera as moot. 2

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.