N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JP M OR GAN C HASE B ANK; e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. LAS VEGAS DEVELOPM ENT GR OUP, LLC , De fe nda

nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-15680

D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01701-JC M -VC F
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 Subm itte d Oc tobe r 15, 2018 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , KLEINFELD, C irc uit Judge , a nd W U, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED OCT 18 2018 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.

** The pa

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

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

* * * The Honora

ble Ge orge H. W

u, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.La s Ve ga s De ve l o pm e nt a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of JP M orga

n C ha se (“ JP M orga

n” ), the Fe de ra l Hom e Loa n M ortga ge C orporation (“ Fre ddie M a c ” ), and the Fe de ra l Housing Fina nc e Age nc y (the “ Fina nc e Age nc y ” ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e AFFIRM
. In 2006, a c ouple nam e d the B rowns purc ha se d re a l prope rty (the

“ Prope rty ” ) in Ne va da

tha t wa s pa rt of a hom e owne rs’ a ssoc iation. TheB rowns fina nc e d the prope rty

with a m ortga ge loa

n tha t Fre ddie M a c e ve nt

ua lly bought. Whe n the B rowns fa ile d to pa y the ir hom e owne rs’ a ssoc iation fe e s , the hom e owne rs’ a ssoc i ation fore c lose d on the ir prope rty . The hom e owne rs’
a ssoc iation he ld a fore c losure sa le , bought the prope rty , a nd the n sold it to La s Ve ga s De ve lopm e nt.

Fre ddie M a c and the Fina nc e Age nc y , Fre ddie M a c ’ s c onse rvator, file d a n a c tion to quiet titleand for de c l arat ory re lie f. The distric t c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Fre ddie M a c and the Fina nc e Age n c y , a

nd he ld tha

t the Fe de ra l Fore c l osure B ar, 12 U.S.C
. § 4617, pre e m pts Ne va da

R e vise d Statute §
2116.3116 a

nd pre ve nts thehom e owne rs’ a ssoc iat ion sa le from e x tinguishing the Fina nc e A ge nc y ’ s inte re st. As a re sult, Fre ddie M a c an d the Fina nc e Age nc y re ta ine d a n inte re s t in theprope rty .
B e c a use the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision wa s in a c c orda nc e with B e re z o vksy

v. M oniz , 869 F.3d 923 (9th C i r. 2017), thedistric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt is AFFIR M ED.

1. First, La s Ve ga s De ve lopm e nt a rgue s tha t the hom e owne rs’ a s soc iation ha d a supe rpriority

lie n pursua

nt to Ne va da

R e vise d Statute § 116.3116 tha t
a llowe d it to se ll the Prope rty without the Fina n c e Age nc y ’ s c onse nt. Howe ve r, the Fe de ra l Fore c losure B ar, 12 U.S.C . § 4617, pre e m pts Ne va da R e vise d Statute § 116.3116 a

nd pre ve nts thehom e owne rs’ a ssoc iat ion sa le from e x tinguishing the Fina nc e A ge nc y ’ s inte re st. Se e B e re z ovsky , 869 F.3d a t 931.

2. La s Ve ga s De v e lopm e nt a lso a rgue s tha t Fre ddie M a c produc e d insuffic ie nt e vide nc e of a prope rty inte re st. Fre d die M a c , howe ve r, produc e d suffic i e nt e vide nc e by

providing printouts of its inte rna l data ba s e re c ords. Id. a

t 932-33; Elm e r v. JP M orga n C ha se & C o., 707 F. App’ x 426, 428 (9th C ir. 2017).

33. La s Ve ga s De v e lopm e nt a lso a rgue s tha t Fre ddie M a c la c k e d

an e nforc e a ble prope rty

inte re s t be c a

use Fre ddie M a c wa s not there c ord be ne fic ia ry of the de e d of trust. Howe ve r, Fre ddie M a c still he ld a n e nforc e a

ble prope rty inte re s t be c a

use the re c ord be ne fic ia

ry wa s Fre ddie M a c ’ s a ge nt. Se e B e re z ovsky , 869 F.3d a

t 932-33; Fe d. Hom e Loa n M ortg. C orp. v. SFR

Inv. Pool 1, LLC , 893 F.3d 1136 (9th C ir 2018).

4. La s Ve ga s De v e lopm e nt a lso c la im s tha t JP M orga

n’ s c la im is ba rre d by the sta tute o f lim ita

tions. Howe v e r, La s Ve ga s De ve lopm e nt wa ive d this de fe nse by

not inc luding it in its opposition to JP M orga n’ s m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt. Se e USA Pe trole um C o. v. Atl. R

ic hfie ld C o., 13 F.3d 1276, 1284 (9th C ir. 1994). W

hile La s Ve ga s De ve lopm e nt a tte m pte d to inc orporate its a

nswe r in its opposition to the

m o tion for sum

m ary judgm e nt by

re fe rring to “ a ll ple a dings
and pa pe rs,” suc h a

n inc orporation by re fe re nc e doe s not suffic e . Se e C arm e n v. San Franc isc o Unifie d

Sc h. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001).

5. La stly , La s Ve ga s De ve lopm e nt c la im s tha t the distric t

c o urt im prope rly gran te d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use no disc ove ry

ha d y e t oc c urre d. Howe ve r, La s Ve ga s De ve lopm e nt wa s re quire d to obje c t to a la c k of disc ove ry

and re que st
4a

ppropria te re lie f unde r R

ule 56(d) a

nd did not. Se e Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 56(d). Inste a d , it obje c te d in its opposition brie f. A “ [f] a ilure to c om ply with there quire m e nts of R ule 56(f) 1 is grounds for deny ing disc o v e ry and proc e e ding to sum m ary judgm e nt.” W e i nbe rg v. W hatc om C ty ., 241 F.3d 746, 751 (9th C ir. 2001).

For the se re a sons, thedistric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt is A FFIRM E D
.

1 Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56(d) wa s form e rly Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56(f). 5