FIRST 100 V. WELLS FARGO BANK, No. 13-16618 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 21 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FIRST 100, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-16618 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00431-JCMPAL v. MEMORANDUM* WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, a National Association, Defendant - Appellee, and CITY OF LAS VEGAS, a political subdivision, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 10, 2015** San Francisco, California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Appellant First 100, LLC (“First 100”) appeals the dismissal of its suit to quiet title on a property located at 200 Mission Newport Lane #201 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we do not restate them except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The district court dismissed First 100’s suit based on its determination that a homeowner’s association (“HOA”) foreclosure based on a super-priority lien under Nevada law does not extinguish a first security deed of trust. However, the Nevada Supreme Court has since held in SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 334 P.3d 408 (Nev. 2014), that an HOA has a true super-priority lien on a property for nine months of unpaid assessments, and foreclosure on this lien extinguishes all other interests in that property. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal, to the extent it was based on a contrary interpretation of the Nevada HOA super-priority statutory scheme, was erroneous. See, e.g., Olympic Sports Prods., Inc. v. Universal Athletic Sales Co.,760 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 1985) (federal courts “are bound to follow the decisions of a state’s highest court in interpreting that state’s law”) (citation omitted). 2 We accordingly REVERSE the district court’s dismissal and REMAND for further proceedings. This remand is without prejudice to any constitutional arguments the parties may make below, which the district court may address in the first instance. We note that the State of Nevada or the Federal Housing Finance Agency may wish to intervene in the proceedings below, in light of the possible constitutional issues that the district court may address on remand. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 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.