Sfr Investments Pool 1 v. Phh Mortgage

VACATE the portion of the order denying preliminary injunctive relief, REVERSE the portion of the order granting the motion to dismiss, AND REMAND this matter for proceedings consistent with this order.

Piedlett Pickering riact.-- J. Saitta

PARRAGUIRRE, J., concurring:

For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree that respondent lost its lien priority by virtue• of the homeowners association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the disposition of this appeal. cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge

Howard Kim & Associates Malcolm Cisneros/Irvine CA Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A Are(4