IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA SATICOY BAY LLC, SERIES 2920 No. 82323 BAYLINER AVENUE, A NEVADA SERIES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Appellant, vs. FILE U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY NOV 1 0 2021 BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR NRZ ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT PASS-THROUGH TRUST X, A BY 5-y DEPUTY CL CLA-Et NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION; AND NRZ REO X LLC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Res • onclents. ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Judge. Reviewing the summary judgment de novo, Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005), we affirm.' The district court granted summary judgment for respondents, relying in part on Glass v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Docket No. 78325, Order of Affirmance, at *2-3 (July 1, 2020). In Glass, we reasoned that because a Notice of Rescission rescinded a previously recorded Notice of Default, the Notice of Rescission "effectively cancelled the acceleration" triggered by the Notice of Default such that NRS 106.240s 10-year period was reset. Id. at *3. Because the Notice of Rescission in this case is 'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA di-323-70 substantively identical to that in Glass, we agree with the district court that the Notice of Rescission had the same effect and that respondent U.S. Bank retained an enforceable lien against the subject property. We are not persuaded by appellant's arguments that Glass is distinguishable from this case.2 Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.3 r C.J. Hardesty J. Cadish cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Charles K. Hauser, Settlement Judge Roger P. Croteau & Associates, Ltd. ZBS Law, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk 2Appellant contends that the district court should have granted its request for NRCP 56(d) relief to conduct discovery into the contents of a letter that respondent U.S. Bank's predecessor sent to the former homeowner before the Notice of Default was recorded. However, given our conclusion that the Notice of Rescission was effective to decelerate the loan, the contents of that letter are moot, and the NRCP 56(d) continuance was properly denied. 3The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 2