Source: http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180309_0002914.DNV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:12:12+00:00

Document:
DESERT SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendant(s).
Presently before the court is plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon's (“BNYM”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33). Defendant Premier One Holdings, Inc. (“Premier”) filed a response (ECF No. 43), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 47).
Also before the court is defendant's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 42), to which defendant replied (ECF No. 46).
This case involves a dispute over real property located at 8416 Haven Brook Court, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89128 (the “property”). (ECF No. 1). On June 27, 2005, Sung Hee Park purchased the property. Id. Park obtained a loan in the amount of $369, 000 from Mylor Financial Group, Inc. (“Mylor”) to finance the purchase. Id. The loan was secured by a deed of trust recorded on August 10, 2005. Id.; (ECF No. 33-1). The deed of trust lists Mylor as the lender and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the beneficiary “solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns.” (ECF No. 33-1). The covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&R”) governing the property contained a mortgage protection clause. (ECF No. 33-3).
On September 28, 2010, MERS assigned its interest in the deed of trust to plaintiff via a corporate assignment of deed of trust (recorded on September 30, 2010). (ECF No. 33-2).
Park stopped paying dues to Desert Shores Community Association (“the HOA”). On January 11, 2012, Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”), acting on behalf of the HOA, recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $774.84. (ECF No. 33-5). On March 9, 2012, NAS, acting on behalf of the HOA, recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $2, 943.76. (ECF No. 1); (ECF No. 33-7).
Bank of America National Association (“BOA”) was plaintiff's predecessor in interest. (ECF Nos. 1, 33). On July 27, 2012, Miles, Bauer, Bergstrom & Winters LLP (“MBBW”), acting on behalf of BOA, sent NAS a letter requesting a payoff ledger. (ECF No. 33-8). NAS did not provide MBBW with a ledger. Id. Based on ledgers from different properties under the same HOA, BOA sent NAS a check for $864.63 on August 2, 2012, which represented BOA's estimate of nine months of assessments and reasonable collection costs. Id. The HOA, through NAS, did not accept or cash the check. Id.
On September 9, 2013, NAS recorded a notice of trustee's sale, stating an amount due of $5, 037.71 and an anticipated sale date of September 30, 2013. (ECF No. 33-10).
On September 30, 2013, the HOA foreclosed on the property. (ECF No. 33-11). Defendant purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $23, 500. Id. A foreclosure deed in favor of defendant was recorded on October 13, 2014. Id.
On July 1, 2016, plaintiff filed its complaint, alleging quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants, breach of NRS 116.1113 against the HOA and NAS, wrongful foreclosure against the HOA and NAS, and injunctive relief against Premier. (ECF No. 1).
In the instant motions, plaintiff and defendant Premier both move for summary judgment in their favor. (ECF Nos. 33, 34).
In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. At summary judgment, a court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See Id. at 249-50.
As an initial matter, claim (4) of plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed without prejudice as the court follows the well-settled rule in that a claim for “injunctive relief” standing alone is not a cause of action. See, e.g., In re Wal-Mart Wage & Hour Emp't Practices Litig., 490 F.Supp.2d 1091, 1130 (D. Nev. 2007); Tillman v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., No. 2:12-CV-346 JCM RJJ, 2012 WL 1279939, at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 13, 2012) (finding that “injunctive relief is a remedy, not an independent cause of action”); Jensen v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 702 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1201 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“A request for injunctive relief by itself does not state a cause of action.”).
The court takes judicial notice of the following recorded documents: the first deed of trust (ECF No. 33-1); the assignment to plaintiff (ECF No. 33-2); the notice of delinquent assessment (ECF No. 33-5); the notice of default and election to sell (ECF No. 33-7); the notice of foreclosure sale (ECF No. 33-10); and the foreclosure deed upon sale (ECF No. 33-11). See, e.g., United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a court may take judicial notice of public records if the facts noticed are not subject to reasonable dispute); Intri-Plex Tech., Inv. v. Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.