Nevada Supreme Court, 2022

Sfr Invs. Pool 1, Llc v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Nat'L Ass'N

Sfr Invs. Pool 1, Llc v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Nat'L Ass'N
Nevada Supreme Court · Decided June 17, 2022 · No. 83214
Sfr Invs. Pool 1, Llc v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Nat'L Ass'N

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, A No. 83214 NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY

COMPANY,

Appellant, vs.

F JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, CLE EY Respondent.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a district court final judgment in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District, Court, Clark County; Jessica K. Peterson, Judge.'

In a previous appeal, we reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of appellant and directed the district court to enter judgment in favor of respondent. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. SFR hum. Pool 1, LLC, 136 Nev. 596, 603, 475 P.3d 52, 58-59 (2020). On remand, the district court complied with this court's mandate. Now in this appeal, appellant contends that another remand is appropriate because it should be able to seek money damages based on the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021).2 We decline appellant's invitation to remand again, as appellant did not raise its Co//ins-based argument in district court, and we are not persuaded by appellant's explanation for why it was unable to previously make arguments similar to those asserted by the plaintiffs in Collins. See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (recognizing that this court need not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.3

J. Sr.J.

cc: Hon. Jessica K. Peterson, District Judge Hanks Law Group

Ballard Spahr LLP/Las Vegas

Eighth District Court Clerk

3The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignrnent. SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

011 1947A

1 Pursuant to NRAP 3401), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted. '2 Collins held that the Housing Economic Recovery Act's for-cause restriction on the President's ability to remove the FHFA's Director violated the separation-of-powers doctrine, but also concluded that the Director still had authority to carry out the functions of the office. 141 S. Ct. at 1788.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.