2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS Case No. 2:17-cv-01887-MMD-NJK TRUSTEE FOR BANC OF AMERICA 7 MORTGAGE SECURITIES MORTGAGE ORDER PASS THRU CERTIFICATES SERIES 8 2005-3,

9 Plaintiff, v. 10 THE SPRINGS AT CENTENNIAL RANCH 11 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; and SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, 12 Defendants. 13 14 This case arises out of a homeowners association’s foreclosure sale and involves 15 the notice provisions applicable to the same under Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) 16 Chapter 116. (See generally ECF No. 58.) The Court has already issued a final order 17 (“Order”) and judgment (“Final Judgment”) in this case. However, Plaintiff Wells Fargo 18 Bank, N.A., as trustee for Banc of America Mortgage Securities Mortgage Pass Thru 19 Certificates Series 2005-3 (“Wells Fargo”), has moved for the Court to alter or amend its 20 Order and Final Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 100). Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, 21 LLC (“SFR”) filed an opposition (ECF No. 104) and Wells Fargo replied (ECF No. 105). 22 The Court will deny the Motion. 23 Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a district court to 24 reconsider and amend a previous order as an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly 25 in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate 26 of Bishop,

, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation 27 omitted). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 28 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 2 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold,

(9th Cir. 1999). “A Rule 59(e) motion 3 may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could 4 reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enter., 229 F.3d at 890 (citing 5 389 Orange St. Partners,

). 6 In its Order, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants SFR and 7 Springs at Centennial Ranch Homeowners Association (“HOA”) on Wells Fargo’s claims, 8 including for quiet title. (See ECF No. 93 at 2.) The Court also denied Wells Fargo’s motion 9 (ECF No. 80) on the same claim. (ECF No. 93.) The Court’s ruling was based on its 10 ultimate conclusion that the HOA’s Sale was valid—meaning that Wells Fargo failed to 11 overcome the baseline presumption that the HOA’s sale was properly conducted, see 12 Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon,

, 13 646 (Nev. 2017). Yet, in the Motion Wells Fargo argues that the Court committed error in 14 ordering that the HOA’s sale “extinguished all junior interests” and Wells Fargo has “no 15 enforceable lien, interest or property right” in the subject property. (E.g., ECF No. 100 at 16 1, 5 (quoting ECF Nos 93, 95).) Wells Fargo contends that the Court’s ruling should have 17 said nothing beyond that the Defendants were granted summary judgment on Wells 18 Fargo’s claims because SFR did not separately also plead a quiet title claim. SFR counters 19 that Wells Fargo waived its contention that SFR did not plead a quiet title claim and 20 otherwise argues that the Motion is without merit because the Court’s Order was properly 21 decided. (ECF No. 104.) The Court agrees that its Order and Final Judgment was not in 22 error. 23 There was no good reason for the Court to stop where Wells Fargo’s Motion claims 24 it should have, much less a clearly erroneous one. An action for quiet title, as Wells Fargo 25 brought, invokes “the court’s inherent equitable jurisdiction to settle title disputes.” Shadow 26 Wood HOA v. N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp.,

, 1111 (Nev. 2016). The resolution of 27 such a claim is part of “[t]he long-standing and broad inherent power of a court to sit in 28 equity and quiet title, including setting aside a foreclosure sale if the circumstances 1 || support’ it. /d. at 1112. Here, the circumstances and facts of this case did not support 2 || setting aside the HOA’s sale. Insomuch as the Court concluded that the HOA Sale was 3 || valid means that Wells Fargo’s deed of trust (“DOT”) was extinguished and Wells Fargo 4 || has no remaining interest in the Property.’ The Court therefore needs no separate claim 5 || by SFR also seeking the same relief—to quiet titte—before it quiets title, especially as to 6 || Wells Fargo. The Court therefore declines to disturb its Order and Final Judgment and 7 || need not reach the parties’ other arguments. 8 It is therefore ordered that Wells Fargo’s motion to alter or amend the Court’s Order 9 || and Final Judgment (ECF No. 100) is denied. 10 DATED THIS 9" day of June 2020.

49 / —_ MIRANDA M. DU 13 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘To be sure, there was no contention here that Wells Fargo made a proper tender to preserve its DOT.