NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS2

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 n ot 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 trigger s 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 N evada’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 mar ks and citation omitted). While recognizing “ v iolations 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

s tanding 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

s tay ”). 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 , ” i d

. , 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, 64 3 (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. 3 8) is denied. Appellant’s Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Madeira Homeowners Association from the appeal (Dkt. 42) is granted.