NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
Plaintiff

- counter

defendant

- Appellant,

v. EQUITY TRUST COMPANY CUSTODIAN FBO Z130255; ASHWIN PATEL,
Defendants

- counter

- claim

3rd

- party

- plaintiffs

Appellees,

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 APPEALS2

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 Z130 255 and Ashwin Patel

. Speci fically, Nationstar appeals 1) the district court’s ruling that the subject non

judicial 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, Citi M ortgage, 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 Nat ionstar 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 Sh adow Wood Homeowners Ass ’ n v. N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp. , 366 P.3d 1105, 111 1 ( 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 occur red , or that any such3

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 statut ory 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). Suc h 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 constitutionalit y 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.