NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FIRST 100, LLC, 

Plaintiff-counterdefendant-Appellee, 

 v. 

RTED NEVADA, LLC, 

Defendant-counter-claimantcross-claimant-Appellant, 

 v. 

SCOTT B. OLIFANT; et al., 

Cross-defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-17364 

D.C. No. 

2:17-cv-01438-JCM-CWH 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 8, 2020**

San Francisco, California

Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ROYAL,*** District 

* 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

JUN 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Judge.

Robert Oggins bought a Nevada residence with a loan secured by a deed of 

trust. In 2013, Cenlar FSB acquired the deed of trust, naming Trustee Corps as

trustee. After Oggins failed to pay property assessments, Valley del Paradiso 

Homeowners Association (“the HOA”) mailed a Notice of Foreclosure Sale to

Trustee Corps. The HOA subsequently acquired the Oggins property at a 

nonjudicial foreclosure sale on February 3, 2014. First 100, LLC eventually 

purchased the property, and Omni Financial, LLC later acquired an interest in it. 

In 2014, First 100 brought this quiet title action against Cenlar in Nevada state 

court. After acquiring the deed of trust in 2016, RTED Nevada, LLC (“RTED”) was 

named a defendant and crossclaimed against the HOA, Omni, the United States 

(which had a tax lien on the subject property), and others. After the government 

removed the action to federal court, the district court dismissed First 100’s complaint 

with prejudice, and granted summary judgment to the HOA, finding that the 2014 

foreclosure sale extinguished the Cenlar deed of trust. We have jurisdiction over

RTED’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

1 We vacate and remand.

*** The Honorable C. Ashley Royal, United States District Judge for the 

Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

1 After the district court dismissed First 100’s complaint, the government did 

not pursue relief below and, although a named appellee, has disclaimed any interest 

in the outcome of this appeal. First 100 did not appeal the district court’s dismissal 

of its complaint. 
3 

Under Nevada law, “proper foreclosure of the superpriority piece of the 

[HOA’s] lien extinguishes a first deed of trust.” Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Saticoy 

Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 405 P.3d 641, 642 (Nev. 2017). The Nevada 

statutes required the HOA to mail notice of a foreclosure sale to each “person with 

an interest whose interest or claimed interest is subordinate” to its lien, Nev. Rev. 

Stat. § 107.090(2)(b), (3), using the “last known address” as indicated on the 

publicly recorded deed of trust, U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n ND v. Res. Grp., LLC, 444 

P.3d 442, 446 (Nev. 2019) (quoting Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080(3), (4)). 

RTED argues that summary judgment to the HOA was improper because 

RTED presented evidence that Cenlar did not receive notice of the foreclosure sale. 

The HOA presented evidence that it mailed the statutorily required notice to Trustee 

Corps. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.090(2)(b), (3). But, a trustee’s authority is 

generally limited to exercising “the power of sale with respect to the property,” see

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080(1), (2)(c), and the record contains no evidence that Trustee 

Corps had broader agency on behalf of Cenlar. 

The HOA’s agent testified that its standard “procedure was to send certified 

mail, return receipt” to all lienholders with subordinate interests. However, the agent 

remembered nothing about this particular sale, and had no other evidence of service 

on Cenlar. Nor does the record contain any evidence that Cenlar had actual notice 

of the sale, a factor in establishing substantial compliance with the Nevada statutes. 
4 

See Collegium Fund LLC Series 16 v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., No. 74879, 2019 

WL 2743518, at *1 (Nev. June 26, 2019); see also Saticoy Bay LLC Series 9050 W. 

Warm Springs 2079 v. Nev. Ass’n Servs., 444 P.3d 428, 435 (Nev. 2019).

2 On this 

record, genuine factual disputes precluded summary judgment for either party.

3

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Each party to bear its own costs.

2 Contrary to the HOA’s assertions, the statutory presumption of validity of a 

foreclosure sale does not apply if the HOA does not satisfy or substantially comply 

with the statutory requirements. See Shadow Wood HOA v. N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp, 

Inc., 366 P.3d 1105, 1110 (Nev. 2016).

3 We accordingly decline to address the district court’s denial of RTED’s 

motion for leave to amend its answer. The district court can address that motion 

anew on remand.