NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY, as Trustee for Holders of the 

BCAP LLC Trust 2007-AA1, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MADEIRA CANYON HOMEOWNERS 

ASSOCIATION; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16719 

D.C. No. 

2:16-cv-02603-RFB-CWH 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 2, 2020**

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and KENDALL,*** District 

Judge.

* 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 Virginia M. Kendall, United States District Judge for 

the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

FILED

SEP 4 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) appeals the 

district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in a declaratory judgment 

action. The parties are familiar with the facts and we do not repeat them here. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment, Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 

F.3d 751, 759 (9th Cir. 2019), and affirm.

The non-judicial foreclosure sale and all notices relating to it took place 

during the pendency of the original property owner’s bankruptcy. A bankruptcy 

triggers a “self-executing” and “automatic stay of actions by all entities to collect 

or recover on claims.” Burton v. Infinity Cap. Mgmt., 862 F.3d 740, 746 (9th Cir. 

2017) (citing 11 U.S.C § 362(a); In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d 1074, 1081 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(en banc)). Although we have “not had occasion to decide whether notices filed 

pursuant to Nevada’s non-judicial foreclosure statute” violate the stay, “acts that 

immediately or potentially threaten the debtor’s possession of its property” do. 

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Corte Madera Homeowners Ass’n, 962 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th 

Cir. 2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

While recognizing “violations of the automatic stay are void, not voidable,”

In re Schwartz, 954 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1992), the district court correctly

concluded that Deutsche Bank—a creditor, rather than a debtor or trustee—lacked 

standing to challenge the violation of the stay. See In re Pecan Groves of Ariz., 
3 

951 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “a creditor has no independent 

standing to appeal an adverse decision regarding a violation of the automatic 

stay”). Notwithstanding Deutsch Bank’s attempts to narrow In re Pecan Groves’s 

holding, it applies by its own terms to all actions “seek[ing] to enforce the 

protections of the automatic stay,” id., and forecloses these arguments.

Deutsche Bank’s assertions about the purportedly inequitable nature of the 

sale due to the low purchase price, and thus Elmer’s status as a bona fide 

purchaser, are similarly unavailing. Nevada law requires “proof of some element 

of fraud, unfairness, or oppression as accounts for and brings about the inadequacy 

of price.” Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow 

Canyon, 405 P.3d 641, 643 (Nev. 2017) (citation omitted). Here, such proof is 

lacking.

AFFIRMED.1

1 Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Reply Brief (Dkt. 35) is granted. 

Appellant’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal (Dkt. 38) is denied. 

Appellant’s Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Madeira Homeowners Association from 

the appeal (Dkt. 42) is granted.