N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DEUTSC HE B ANK NATIONAL TR UST C OM PANY, a s Truste e for R e side ntia l Asse t Se c uritiz at ion Trust 2006-A3C B M ortga ge Pa ss-Through C e rtific ate s, Se rie s 2006-C ,

Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt,
v. ALIANTE M A STER ASSOC IATION,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e , SFR INVESTM ENTS POOL 1, LLC , De fe nda n t-c ounte r-c la im antc ross-c la i m ant-Appe lle e , and NEVADA ASSOC IATION SER V IC ES, INC ., De fe nda

n t,
v. No. 20-16141 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-02638-GM

N-EJY
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

MAY3 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.NORM AN R
. FLEM ENS; M OR TGAGE

ELEC T R ONIC REGISTR ATION SYSTEM S, INC ., a s Nom ine e B e ne fic ia ry for M e ridia s C a

pita l, Inc ., C ross-c la im -de fe nda

nts. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Gloria M . Nava rro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 13, 2023 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S and KOH, C irc uit Judge s , a nd R AKOFF, * * Distric t Judge
. De utsc he B ank Na

tiona l Trust C om

pa ny (“ De utsc he ” ) a

ppe a ls the distric t
c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt for SFR

Inve stm e nts Pool 1, LLC (“ SFR ” ) and Alia nte M a ste r Assoc iation (“ Alia nte ” ) and dismissa l of c e rta in c l a im s a s untim e ly in a n a c tion a lle g ing c la im s a

rising out of a

nonjudic i a l fore c losure by the hom e owne rs a s soc iation (“ HOA” ), Alia nte , on re a l prope rty

in Ne va d a . W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision on c ross m o tions for sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd c onside r, “ vie wing the
e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to the nonm oving pa

rty , whe the r the re are ge nuine i ssue s of m ate ria l fa c t a nd whe the r the distric t

c o urt c orre c tly

a pplie d the

* * The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion. 2re le va

nt substa n tive la w.” C s utoras v . Paradise

High Sc h. , 12 F.4th 960, 965 (9th C ir. 2021) (c ita

tion omitte d). W e a lso re vie w de novo whe the r a c la im is ba rre d by
a sta tute of lim ita

tions, Bird v . De

p’t of Hum. Se rv

s. , 935 F.3d 738, 743 n.5 (9th C ir. 2019), a

nd a distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of sta te la w, Platt v . Moore , 15 F.4th 895, 901 (9th C ir. 2021). W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c tua l an d proc e dura l history of the c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . 1. The fore c losure sa le is not void ba se d on sta tutory notic e de fe c ts, be c a use De utsc h e did not m ake the ne c e ssa ry showing of pre

j udic e to a

pa rty with
an inte re s t in thede e d of trust. U.S. Bank v . Re s. Grp., LLC (“

Re sourc e s Group II ” ), 444 P.3d 442, 447–48 (Ne v. 2019) (in orde r to void the sa le , the notic e de fic ie nc y

m ust pre judic e an inte re ste d pa

rty ). Inde e d, De utsc he did not produc e
e vide nc e sugge sting tha

t a ny pa rty would ha v e a c te d to pre se rve the de e d of trust if De utsc he ha d re c e ive d the prope r notic e . 2. The distric t c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt for SFR

on De utsc he ’ s
a s-a pplie d due proc e s s c la im . Howe ve r, the distric t c ourt re stric te d its a na ly sis to whe the r the sta

tutory sc he m e viola

te d due proc e ss a

nd did not se

pa ra te ly c onside r whe the r the notic e give n he re m e t the c onstitutiona l re quire m e nt tha

t the notic e be

1 W e a lso de ny

SFR ’ s m otion to supple

m e nt its a nswe ring brie f (Dkt. 82). 3“ re a sona

bly c a lc ulate d to a

pprise ” inte re ste d pa

rtie s of the sa le
. Se e Me nnonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams , 462 U.S. 791, 798 (1983). We re m and to the distric t c ourt for re c onside ration of thea s-a pplie d due proc e ss c h a l le nge , inc luding whe t he r De utsc he ’ s c la i m

satisfie s the sta

te a c tion e le m e nt of a due proc e ss c la im
. Se e Bourne Valle y C t. Tr. v . W e lls Fargo Bank

, 832 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th C ir. 2016);
se e a lso Satic oy

Bay LLC Se rie s 350 Durango 104 v

. W e lls Fargo Home Mortgage , 388 P.3d 970, 973–74 (Ne v. 2017 )
. 2 3. Alia

nte fore c lose d on a

va lid supe rpriority

portion of its lie

n. The supe rpriority

c o m pone nt of a

n HOA lie n

c onsists of “the la st ninem onths of unpa id HOA due s a

nd m a inte na

nc e and nuisa

nc e -a bate m e nt c ha

rge s.” S F R Inv s. Pool 1, LLC v . U.S. Bank , 334 P.3d 408, 411 (Nev. 2014) (pa rtia lly supe rse de d on othe r grounds). To fore c lose on a supe rpriority

lie n, a n HOA m ust providea notic e of de linque nt a sse ssm e nt lie n tha t “ sta te s the am ounts of a sse s sm e nts a nd othe r sum s whic h

are due
. ” Ne v. R e v. Stat. § 116.31162(1)(a ) (W e st 2011). Although the re c orde d notic e of lie n only re fe re n c e d the borrowe r’ s subpriority de bt from viola tions a nd re late d c olle c tion c o sts, t

he borrowe r wa s de linque nt on

2 De utsc he ha s sta

nding to raise the due proc e s s issuea s the suc c e ssor-ininte re s t of the be ne fic ia

ry of the de e d of trust a

t the tim e of the fore c l osure sa le
. Se e Sprint C

o mmc ’ns C

o. v . APC C

Se rv s., Inc
. , 554 U.S. 269, 285 (2008). 4his c om

m on a sse ssm e nt fe e s at the tim e of the origina l notic e , 3 an d Alia nte late r
se nt a n a dditiona l notic e to the borrowe r e nc om pa ssing thesupe rpriority
a sse ssm e nt fe e s. Alia

nte a lso tim e ly

institute d proc e e dings to e nforc e the lie n, be c a use it provide d notic e to the borrowe r le ss tha n thre e y e a

rs a fte r the
a sse ssm e nts be c a

m e due
. Se e id. § 116.3116(5); Satic oy Bay LLC Se rie s 2021 Gray Eagle W ay v . J PMorgan C

haseBank

, 388 P.3d 226, 231 (Nev. 2017). 4. W e re m and a

p pe lla nt’ s c la im tha t the sa le is voida

ble unde r e quity be c a use the re m ay

be a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t. Se e N ationstar Mortg., LLC
v . Satic oy Bay LLC Se r ie

s 2227 Shadow

C any on (“ Shadow

C a ny on ” ), 405 P.3d 641, 643 (Ne v. 2017). A sale is voida ble unde r e quity and m ay the re fore be se t
a side “ if the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s de m onstra

te s tha t the sa le itse lf wa s
a ffe c te d by

fra ud, unfa irne ss, or oppre ssion.” U.S. Bank v . W hite Horse Ests. Home ow ne rs Ass’n , 987 F.3d 858, 864 (9th C ir. 2021) (a lte ra tion m a de ) (c i tations
and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). B e c a

use the sa le s pric e wa s low— a pproxim ate ly

five p e rc e nt of the prope rty ’ s fa i r m arke t va lue

— D e utsc he
ne e d only produc e “ slight e vide nc e of fra ud, unfa i rne ss, or oppre ssion tha t a ffe c te d

3 De utsc he ha s not shown error in the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t the c onte m p orane ous le dge rs not re fle c ting this de linque nc y fa ile d to e sta

blish a ge nuine i ssue of m ate ria l fa c t on this point. 5the s a le .” Se e id. ; se ealso Re sourc e s Group II

, 444 P.3d a

t 449 (sa l e s pric e be twe e n te n a

nd fifte e n pe rc e nt of fa ir m arke t va lue wa s “ grossly ina de quate ” ). It a ppe ars tha

t the distric t c ourt did not a pply this le nie nt sta

n da rd. R athe r, it found tha t De utsc he “ c annot e sta

blish tha t the sa le wa s a ffe c te d by

fra ud, unfa irne ss, or oppre ssion” be c a use De utsc he “ ha s not e s ta blishe d tha

t [the ] HOA's fa ilure to se nd notic e to M ER S c onstitute s unfa irne ss [a ] ffe c ting the sa le by
re sulting in . . . c

hille d bidding.”The re fore , we re m and to thedistric t c o urt to
c la rify whe the r— a fte r a

ba la n c ing of thee quitie s and unde r the tota lity of the
c irc um s ta nc e s
—De utsc h e produc e d slight e vide nc e tha t it wa s “ c onfuse d or othe rwise pre

judic e d” by

“ fraud, unfa irne ss or oppre s sion” tha t a ffe c te d the sa le
. Se e Shadow

C any on , 405 P.3d a

t 650; se e also Re

s. Grp., LLC

v . N e v . Ass’n Se rv

s., Inc
. , 437 P.3d 154, 160 (Nev. 2019) (“ [C ] ourts sitting in e quity are re quire d to
ana ly z e the tota lity

of the c i rc um sta

nc e s whe n de te rm ining whe the r to se t a s ide an HOA fore c losure sa le on e quita ble grounds.” ). On re m a

n d, the distric t c ourt should a lso c onside r SFR ’ s bona fide purc ha se r sta

tus in thefirst insta

nc e . Se e Frie dman v . AARP, Inc
. , 855 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th C ir. 2017) (noting tha t, a s a ge ne ra l rule , this c ourt “ do[e s] not c onside r an issue not pa sse d upon be low” ). 5. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly gran te d sum

m ary judgm e nt on De utsc he ’ s
c ontra c t-ba se d c la im s. Eve n a ssum ing both tha t De utsc h e ’ s c o ntra c t c la im s re m a i n
6via

b le whe n C ha

pte r 116’ s provisions a

re nonwa iva

ble and tha

t the c o ve na

nts,
c onditions, a

nd re s tric tions (“ C C & R s” ) c o nstitutean e nforc e a ble c ontra c t , De utsc he is not a

n inte n de d third-pa

rty be ne fic ia

ry of the C C & R s. “ To obta in [inte nde d third-pa rty be ne fic ia ry ] sta tus, the re m

ust c le arly

a ppe ar a prom issory inte nt to be ne fit the third pa rty . . . , a nd ultim at e ly

it m ust be shown tha

t the third pa rty ’ s re lia nc e the re on is fore se e a

ble .” Lipshie

v . Trac y Inv . C o. , 566 P.2d 819, 824–25 (Ne v. 1977). Thelim ite d re fe re nc e s to le nde rs in the C C & R s do not de m onstra

te the ne c e ssa

ry “ p rom issory

inte nt to be ne fit the third pa rty . ” Id. at 824. 6. The distric t c ourt dismisse d De utsc he ’ s unjust e nric hm e n t,
ne glige nc e , ne glige nc e pe r se , m isre pre se n tation, a nd wrongful fore c losure c la im s
a s untim e ly

ba se d on a

n a c c rua l da

te of the fore c l osure sa le . During thepe nde nc y of this a p pe a l, the Ne va da

Supre m e C ourt he ld tha

t “ an HOA fore c losure
sa le

— sta nding a lone

— doe s not suffic ie ntly c a ll the ba

nk’ s de e d of trust into que stion to trigge

r the sta tute of lim ita

tions” in a

quie t titlea c tion. U.S. Bank v . Thunde r Props., Inc
. (“ Thunde r Prope rtie s ” ), 503 P.3d 299, 307 (Nev. 2022). W e

7re m and for the distric t c ourt to re c onside r the a c c rua l da te of the se c la im s in light of Thunde r Prope rtie

s. 4 AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , and RE M ANDE D.

4 Untim e line ss unde r Thunde r Prope rtie

s doe s not pre se nt a lte rnat ive grounds to a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary of judgm e nt for SFR

and Alia nte on the quie t titlec l a im s . Thunde r Prope rtie s he ld tha t a four-y e a r sta tute of lim ita tions a pplie s to quie t titlec la im s. 503 P.3d a t 305–06. Howeve r, “ som e a ffirm ative a c tion” on the buy e r’ s pa rt, in a ddition to the

fore c losure sa le , is re quire d to trigge r the lim ita tions pe riod. Id. at

306. SFR

and Alia nte have not m a de tha t showing on the

e xisting re c ord. Howe ve r, we do not pre c lude the distric t c o urt from

e xam ining tha

t que s tion in the

first insta nc e on re m and. 8