NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, 

Plaintiff-counterdefendant-Appellant, 

 v. 

EQUITY TRUST COMPANY 

CUSTODIAN FBO Z130255; ASHWIN 

PATEL, 

Defendants-counter-claim3rd-party-plaintiffsAppellees, 

 v. 

FRANK ORNELAS; VIRGILIA MUNOZ, 

Third-party-defendants.

No. 19-17167 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01744-JAD-EJY 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2020**

San Francisco, California

* 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

DEC 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Before: TASHIMA, TALLMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”) appeals from the 

summary judgment quieting title to a condominium unit in Nevada in favor of 

Defendants Equity Trust Company Custodian FBO Z130255 and Ashwin Patel. 

Specifically, Nationstar appeals 1) the district court’s ruling that the subject nonjudicial foreclosure sale should not be set aside because Nationstar presented no 

evidence of fraud, unfairness, or oppression that impacted the sale; and 2) the 

district court’s rejection of Nationstar’s due process challenge to Nev. Rev. Stat. 

§ 116.3116. We review de novo, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Corte Madera

Homeowners Ass’n, 962 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 2020), and we affirm.

1. Nationstar argues that the district court erred in concluding that there was 

no evidence of fraud, oppression, or unfairness that justified setting aside the

foreclosure sale. Under Nevada law, an inadequate price alone is insufficient to set 

aside a sale. See Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow 

Canyon, 405 P.3d 641, 648–49 (Nev. 2017). There must be “proof of some 

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

inadequacy of price.” Id. at 643 (quoting Shadow Wood Homeowners Ass’n v. 

N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp., 366 P.3d 1105, 1111 (Nev. 2016) (en banc)). Here, the 

district court did not err by ruling that Nationstar failed to raise a material issue of 

fact as to whether any fraud, unfairness, or oppression occurred, or that any such 
3 

alleged behavior impacted the sale. 

2. The district court also correctly rejected Plaintiff’s due-process 

challenge to Nevada’s pre-2015 foreclosure-notice scheme. The Nevada Supreme 

Court has clarified that the statutory scheme requires a mandatory notice of default 

and notice of sale to all holders of subordinate interests to a homeowners 

association’s superpriority lien. See SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 

422 P.3d 1248, 1252–53 (Nev. 2018) (en banc). Such notice adequately informs

holders of subordinate interests that a foreclosure sale is imminent and provides

them an opportunity to protect their interest in the property, which is all that due 

process demands in this context. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany 

Meadows Ave. Tr., 979 F.3d 1209, 1217–18 (9th Cir. 2020). Contrary to 

Nationstar’s argument, the notice provided need not specify the superpriority 

portion of a homeowners association’s lien, and it need not notify lien holders of 

any specific risk to their deeds of trust. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. 

Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 622, 624 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) 

(upholding the statute’s facial constitutionality notwithstanding the fact that the 

deed of trust holder did not receive notice of the superpriority portion of the lien or 

provide particularized notice of risk); see also Mahogany Meadows Ave. Tr., 979 

F.3d at 1217–18.

AFFIRMED.