IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FULCRUM ENTERPRISES, LLC, A No. 68732 NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant, vs. FILE MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP, A FOREIGN CORPORATION; AND CAL-WESTERN MAR 1 7 RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, Respondents.

ORDER VACATING AND REMANDING This is an appeal from a district court order, certified as final under NRCP 54(b), granting a motion to dismiss in a quiet title action.

Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge.

The district court granted respondents' motion to dismiss, concluding that the HOA's foreclosure of its lien did not extinguish the deed of trust because NRS Chapter 116's statutory scheme authorizing the foreclosure violated the due process clauses of the United States and Nevada Constitutions. This court rejected a similar argument in Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 388 P.3d 970 (2017), because there is no state action, which requires reversal of the district court's summary judgment order.'

'In this case, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that respondents did not actually receive the notice of default and notice of sale, and appellant maintains, citing the deed's recitals and proofs of mailing that, in fact, respondents did receive actual notice. This, too, continued on next page...

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1447A gein, interpretation Thus, the district court's ruling was based on an erroneous complaint was of the controlling law and dismissal of appellant's ies' remaining improper. The district court did not address the part rdingly, we arguments, and we decline to do so in the first instance. Acco ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND consistent with REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings this order.

es Douglas ) 4 ;,7 J.

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Boggess & Harker Houser & Allison, APC Eighth District Court Clerk

...continued favor. See SFR requires reversal of summary judgment in respondents' , Adv. Op. 75, 334 Investments Pool I, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. 3) incorporates P.3d 408, 418 (2014) (indicating that NRS 116.31168 (201 sent to a deed of NRS 107.090 (2013), which requires the notices to be o Bank, NA, trust beneficiary); Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Farg nting) (to similar 832 F.3d 1154, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2016) (Wallace, J., disse effect).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e