IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SATICO BAY LLC, SERIES 6629 No. 63011 TUMBLEWEED RIDGE 103 TRUST, Appellant, vs. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS FILED TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWALT, NOV 1 4 2014 INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST TRADE K. LINDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 2006-23CB MORTGAGE PASS- Fi 11:1111H THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-23B, Respondent.

ORDER VACATING AND REMANDING This is an appeal from a district court order denying a preliminary injunction in a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Allan R. Earl, Judge.

Appellant purchased the subject property at Boulder Court Homeowners Association's foreclosure sale, conducted to enforce Boulder Court's delinquent assessment lien. Appellant then filed a quiet title action against respondent and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent respondent's impending foreclosure sale. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that although "Nile homeowners association can foreclose its super priority lien either judicially or nonjudicially and this foreclosure can eliminate the lien of a first deed of trust," "the prescribed notice was not provided in this case." While the district court's interpretation of NRS 116.3116(2) is consistent with this court's recent disposition in SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), we nevertheless conclude that the district court abused its discretion in SUPREME COURT OF denying appellant's request for a preliminary injunction. State, Dep't of NEVADA

(0) 1947A 1-1-3 157(0 Bus. & Indus., Fin. Insts. Div. v. Nev. Ass'n Servs., Inc., 128 Nev. 294 P.3d 1223, 1226 (2012). In particular, the district court denied injunctive relief based on its finding that respondent was not provided with notice of Boulder Court's foreclosure sale. Appellant's complaint alleged that the foreclosure sale was conducted pursuant to NRS Chapter 116, and the record does not reflect that respondent argued that a lack of notice should have precluded preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, we conclude that it was improper for the district court to base its denial of injunctive relief on this unaddressed factual issue. We therefore VACATE the order denying preliminary injunctive relief AND REMAND for proceedings consistent with this order. 1

Hardesty

Douglas Dr% J.

CHERRY, 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.

j, Cherry 'The injunction imposed by our June 10, 2013, order is vacated.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e, cc: Hon. Allan R. Earl, District Judge Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. Akerman LLP/Las Vegas McCarthy & Holthus, I.T.P/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A cep