N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ILM INGTON SAVINGS FUND SOC IETY, FSB , Truste e for Stanwic h M ortga ge Loa

n Trust A, Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lle e , v. YELLOW STONE HOM EOW NER S ASSOC IATION,

De fe nda n t,
and SATIC OY B A Y LLC SER IES 9338 W ILDER NESS GLEN AVENUE, De fe nda n t-c ounte r-c la im antAppe lla nt. No. 20-15734 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-01775-JC M -B NW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# F IL ED NOV 17 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.Subm itte d Nove m b e r 15, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , W . FLETC HER , a nd M ILLER , C irc uit Judge s. Sa tic oy B ay LLC Se rie s 9338 W ilde rne ss Gle n (“ Sa tic oy ” ) a p pe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to W ilm ington Sa vings Fund Soc ie ty , FSB (“ W ilm ington” ) in this quiet title a c tion. Thedistric t c ourt he ld tha t the hom e owne rs’ a ssoc i ation’ s (“ HOA” ) fore c losure sa le to Satic oy wa s void for la c k of notic e . B ank of Am e ric a , N.A. ha d origina lly he ld a de e d of trust on the prope rty whe n the HOA first re c orde d a notic e of de fa u lt a ga inst the prope rty . Afte r the HOA re c orde d a n am e nde d , se c o nd notic e of de fa ult, B ank of Am e ric a , N.A. a ssigne d its intere st to C hristia na Trust (“ C hristia

na ” ), a subsidia ry of W ilm ington. The HOA fa ile d to se nd to C hristia na and W ilm ington e ithe r a

notic e of sa l e or a

third notic e of de fa

ult a m e nding a

c le ric a l e rror in the se c ond notic e of de fa ult. B e c a use of the la c k of notic e , the distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t the sa le wa s void unde r Ne va da

la w. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wthe distric t
c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. Fe d. Home Loan Mortg. C

orp. v .

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). 2SFR Inv

s. Pool 1, LLC

, 893 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th C ir. 2018). W e va c ate and
re m and to thedistric t c o urt for furthe r proc e e dings c o nsiste nt with this disposition. The distric t c ourt c o nc l ude d tha t pre j udic e is irre le v ant he re be c a use “ [a ] pla i ntiff m

ust ple a d pre

judic e only

whe n . . . ‘ substa

ntia l c om plia nc e ’ with the sta tute is a t issue ,” and no c om

plia nc e with notic e sta

t ute s wa s atte m

pte d. Howe ve r, in U.S. Bank

, N ational Ass’n N

D v . Re sourc e s Group, LLC

, 444 P.3d 442 (Ne v. 2019), theNe va da Supre m e C o urt he ld tha

t fa i lure to providenotic e to inte re s te d pa

rtie s doe s not “ a

utom atic a lly

void[] ” a fore c losure sa le , id. at

446. It
a dopte d a “ notic e / pre judic e rule ” inste a d, id. at 447, unde r whic h thre e showings
are re quire d to void a sa le : (1) tha t the HOA did not “ s ubsta ntia lly c om ply ” with its sta tutory notic e o b liga

tions, (2) tha

t the c o m pla ining pa

rty (he re , W ilm ington) “ did not re c e ive tim e ly

notic e by a lte rnative m e ans,” and (3) tha t the c om p la ining pa

rty

“ suffe re d pre judic e a s a

re sult,” id. at 448. Pre

judic e is a

ne c e ssa ry e le m e nt of this te st. Though pre

judic e is a

n e le m e nt of a

substa n tia l c om plia nc e c la i m in the sta tutory re de m ption c o nte xt, se e Satic o

y Bay LLC Se rie s 9050 W W arm Springs 2079 v . N e v . Ass’n Se rv

s. , 444 P.3d 428, 434 (Nev. 2019), no Ne va da c a se indic a te s tha

t c onside ra tion of pre

judic e is limite d

to tha t c onte xt. W e the re fore va c a te and re m and to a llow thedistric t c ourt to e va luat e in the first insta nc e whe the r W ilm ington ha s m a de a suffic ie nt showing of pre judic e . Se e
3Shirk

v . U.S. e x re l. De p’t of Inte rior , 773 F.3d 999, 1007 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ As a fe de ra l c o urt of a

ppe a ls, . . . we are a

c ourt of re v ie w, not first view.” (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d)). V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

4