UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 0 VERN ELMER, an individual, vs. Plaintiff, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a National Association; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Foreign Corporation; MTC FINANCIAL, INC., a Foreign Corporation; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation; SCOTT B. DAVIS, an individual; KAREN L. DAVIS, an individual; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as Conservator of the Federal National Mortgage Corporation, Intervenor, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a National Association; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Foreign Corporation; and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation, vs. Counter-Plaintiffs, VERN ELMER; and SUNRISE RIDGE MASTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Counter-Defendants. Page of Case No.: :-cv-0-gmn-njk ORDER

2 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. filed by Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ( Freddie Mac and Intervenor Federal Housing Finance Agency ( FHFA. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Vern Elmer ( Elmer filed a Response (ECF No., and Freddie Mac and FHFA filed a Reply (ECF No.. I. BACKGROUND The present action involves the interplay between Nevada Revised Statutes. and U.S.C. as it relates to the parties interests in real property located at Pronghorn Ridge Avenue, Las Vegas, NV, (the Property. On September, 00, Scott Davis and Karen Davis (the Davises obtained a loan in the amount of $,000 from The Mortgage House, Inc. ( Mortgage House that was secured by a Deed of Trust on the Property. (Deed of Trust, ECF No. -. The Deed of Trust named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ( MERS as the beneficiary and T.D. Services Co. as the trustee. (Id.. Freddie Mac purchased the Davis Loan on October, 00 and has owned it ever since. See (Exs. A B to Am. Meyer Decl., ECF No. -. On September, 00, FHFA s Director placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorships pursuant to HERA. See (Pollard Decl., ECF No. -. On December, 0, Nevada Association Services, Inc. ( NAS, as agent for Sunrise Ridge Master Homeowners Association (the HOA, recorded a Notice of Delinquent Assessment Lien against the Property for $,0.0. (Not. of Delinquent Assessment Lien, ECF No. -. Then on February 0, 0, NAS recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell, warning that the HOA would foreclose on its lien unless the assessment payments were brought up to date. (Not. of Default and Election to Sell, ECF No. -. On July, 0, NAS, as agent for the HOA, recorded a Notice of Foreclosure Sale, setting a foreclosure sale of The Court takes judicial notice of Exhibits (ECF Nos. - - of Elmer s Response. See Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., F.d, (th Cir.. Each of these documents is publicly recorded in the Clark County Recorder s office. Page of

3 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 the Property on August, 0. (Not. of Foreclosure Sale, ECF No. -. Elmer subsequently purchased the Property as the highest bidder at the November, 0 foreclosure sale. (Foreclosure Deed, ECF No. -. At no time during the process did FHFA, as conservator of Freddie Mac, consent to the HOA s foreclosure. See (Pollard Decl., ECF No. -. On March, 0, MERS assigned its beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ( Chase (Assignment of Deed of Trust, ECF No. -. Moreover, on May 0, 0, Chase substituted MTC Financial Inc. dba Trustee Corps ( Trustee Corps as the trustee of the Deed of Trust. (Substitution of Trustee, ECF No. -. Shortly thereafter, on August, 0, Trustee Corps recorded a Notice of Breach and Default and Election to Sell, indicating that the Davises had failed to perform obligations pursuant to the Deed of Trust. (Not. of Breach and Default and Election to Sell, ECF No. -. However, on October, 0, Trustee Corps recorded a Notice of Rescission. (Not. of Rescission, ECF No. -. On December, 0, Trustee Corps recorded a Notice of Trustee s Sale, setting a trustee sale of the Property on January, 0. (Not. of Trustee s Sale, ECF No. -. Freddie Mac subsequently purchased the Property as the highest bidder at the January, 0 trustee sale (Trustee s Deed Upon Sale, ECF No. -, and Chase assigned its beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to Freddie Mac on March 0, 0 (Assignment of Deed of Trust, ECF No. -. Elmer initiated this action by filing the original complaint in state court on October, 0, asserting, inter alia, a claim for quiet title against Freddie Mac, MERS, Chase, and MTC Financial, Inc. (Compl., ECF No. -. MTC Financial, Inc. subsequently removed the action to this Court on December 0, 0. (Not. of Removal, ECF No.. On December, 0, Freddie Mac filed its Answer, asserting counterclaims against Elmer. (Ans. to Compl. & Counterclaims, ECF No.. On December, 0, Freddie Mac filed its Amended Answer, asserting counterclaims against Elmer and the HOA. (Am. Ans. To Compl. & Page of

4 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document Filed 0// Page of Counterclaims, ECF No.. On January, 0, this Court entered an Order granting FHFA s unopposed Motion to Intervene. (Intervenor Order, ECF No.. Shortly thereafter, on February, 0, Freddie Mac and FHFA filed the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. (MSJ, ECF No.. On June, 0, the Court held a hearing on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, which was attended by the parties in this case as well as the parties in several related cases pending before this Court involving the same issue addressed in this action s summary judgment motion. (Min. of Proceedings, ECF No.. After listening to the arguments presented by all parties present at the hearing, the Court took the motion under submission. 0 II. LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the 0 pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. (a. Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., U.S., (. A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. Summary judgment is inappropriate if reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict in the nonmoving party s favor. Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P ship, F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 00 (citing United States v. Shumway, F.d 0, 0 0 (th Cir.. A principal purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, U.S., (. In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. When These related cases are: Williston Investment Group, LLC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, No. :-cv-0- GMN-PAL; and Skylights LLC vs. Fannie Mae, No. :-cv-00-gmn-vcf. Page of

5 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case. C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., F.d, 0 (th Cir. 000 (citations omitted. In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: ( by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the nonmoving party s case; or ( by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party s case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., U.S. at. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the nonmoving party s evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., U.S., 0 (0. If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., U.S., (. To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties differing versions of the truth at trial. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass n, 0 F.d, (th Cir.. In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data. See Taylor v. List, 0 F.d 00, 0 (th Cir.. Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., U.S. at. At summary judgment, a court s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the Page of

6 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document Filed 0// Page of truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, U.S. at. The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Id. at. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 0. III. DISCUSSION In the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, Freddie Mac and FHFA request that the 0 0 Court declare that U.S.C. (j( preempts any Nevada law that would permit a foreclosure on a superpriority lien to extinguish a property interest of Freddie Mac while it is under FHFA s conservatorship, the HOA Sale did not extinguish Freddie Mac s interest in the Deed of Trust and thus did not convey the Property free and clear to Plaintiff, and Freddie Mac s interest in the Property is superior to the interest of Plaintiff. (Mot. Summ. J. : :, ECF No.. The Court addressed the applicability of U.S.C. (j( in Skylights LLC v. Fannie Mae, 0 WL 0 (D. Nev. June, 0. After addressing many different arguments regarding the applicability of section (j(, the Court held that the plain language of section (j( prohibits property of FHFA from being subject to a foreclosure without its consent. Id. at *0. Here, Freddie Mac has held an interest in the Property since October, 00. See (Exs. A B to Am. Meyer Decl., ECF No. -. Accordingly, because FHFA held an interest in the Deed of Trust as conservator for Freddie Mac prior to the HOA foreclosure, section (j( prevents the HOA s foreclosure on the Property from extinguishing the Deed of Trust. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Freddie Mac and FHFA s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. is GRANTED. The Court finds that U.S.C. (j( preempts Nevada Revised Statutes. to the extent that a homeowner association s foreclosure Page of

7 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document Filed 0// Page of of its super-priority lien cannot extinguish a property interest of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac while those entities are under FHFA s conservatorship. Accordingly, the HOA s foreclosure sale of its super-priority interest on the Property did not extinguish Freddie Mac s interest in the property secured by the Deed of Trust or convey the Property free and clear to Elmer. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Freddie Mac, FHFA, the Davises, Chase, and MERS are granted summary judgment on Elmer s claims for quiet title. DATED this th day of July, 0. 0 Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 0 Page of

8 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document 0 Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 0 PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada Corporation, vs. Plaintiff, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; DOES I through X; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X, Defendants, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as Conservator of the Federal National Mortgage Corporation, Intervenor, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, vs. Counter-Plaintiffs, PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC.; and SOUTHERN TERRACE HOMEOWNER S ASSOCIATION, Counter-Defendants. Case No.: :-cv--gmn-njk ORDER Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 0 filed by Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association annie Mae nor Federal -Defendant Premier One Holdings, Inc. Page of

9 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document 0 Filed 0// Page of Premier One (ECF No.. I. BACKGROUND, and Fannie Mae and FHFA filed a Reply The present action involves the interplay between Nevada Revised Statutes. and U.S.C. as it relates to Garden Street, Las Vegas, NV, interests in real property located at Moon On November, 00, the Property 0 was secured by a Deed of Trust. (Deed of Trust, ECF No. -. The Deed of Trust named as the beneficiary and ReconTrust Company, N.A. as the trustee. (Id.. Fannie Mae acquired ownership of a mortgage loan secured by the Property on December, 00 and has owned it ever since. See (Exs. A B to Curcio Decl., ECF No.. conservatorships pursuant to HERA. See (Pollard Decl., ECF No.. On July, 00, MERS assigned its beneficial interest to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP. (Corp. Assignment of Deed of Trust, ECF No. -. On October, 0, a Notice of Delinquent Assessment Lien was recorded against the Property. (See Foreclosure Deed, ECF No. -. Then on January, 0, a Notice of Default and Election to Sell was recorded against the Property. (See id.. On May, 0, (the HOA. (See id.. Premier One subsequently 0 purchased the Property as the highest bidder at the May, 0 foreclosure sale. (Id.. At no time during the process did FHFA, as conservator of Fannie Mae foreclosure. See (Pollard Decl., ECF No.. On August, 0, the beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust was assigned to The Court takes judicial notice of Exhibits (ECF Nos. - - of Judicial Notice (ECF No.. See Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., F.d, (th Cir.. Each of these documents Page of

10 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document 0 Filed 0// Page of Nationstar Mortgage LLC Nationstar ent of Deed of Trust, ECF No. -. Moreover, Nationstar assigned its beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to Fannie Mae on September, 0 (Assignment of Deed of Trust, ECF No. -. II. LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidav 0 0 may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., U.S., (. A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P ship, F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 00 (citing United States v. Shumway, F.d 0, 0 0 (th Cir.. A principal Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, U.S., (. In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burdenthe party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing the a C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., F.d, 0 (th Cir. 000 (citations omitted. In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: ( by presenting evidence to negate an Page of

11 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document 0 Filed 0// Page of party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an elem on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., U.S. at. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the U.S., 0 (0. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 0 If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., U.S., (. To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is spute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass n, 0 F.d, (th Cir.. In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data. See Taylor v. List, 0 F.d 00, 0 (th Cir.. Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., U.S. at. truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, U.S. at. 0 Id. at. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 0. III. DISCUSSION In the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, Fannie Mac and FHFA request that the that would permit a foreclosure on a superpriority lien to extinguish a property interest of Fannie Mae while it is Page of

12 Case :-cv-0-gmn-njk Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Fannie Mae Deed of Trust and thus did not convey the Property free and clear to Plaint Fannie Mae superior to the interest :, ECF No. 0. The Court addressed the applicability of U.S.C. (j( in Skylights LLC v. Fannie Mae, 0 WL 0 (D. Nev. June, 0. After addressing many different arguments regarding the applicability of section (j(, the Court held that the plain language of section (j( prohibits property of FHFA from being subject to a foreclosure without its consent. Id. at *0. Here, Fannie Mae has held an interest in the Property since December, 00. See (Exs. A B to Curcio Decl., ECF No.. Accordingly, because FHFA held an interest in the Deed of Trust as conservator for Fannie Mae prior to the HOA foreclosure, section (j( IV. CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 0 is GRANTED. The Court finds that U.S.C. (j( preempts of its super-priority lien cannot extinguish a property interest of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac 0 sale of its superproperty secured by the Deed of Trust or convey the Property free and clear to Premier One. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Fannie Mae and FHFA are granted summary DATED this th day of July, 0. Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court Page of

13 Case :-cv-00-gmn-pal Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 0 WILLISTON INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, a Nevada limited Liability Company, vs. Plaintiff, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a National Association; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Foreign Corporation; MTC FINANCIAL, INC., a Foreign Corporation; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation; ROBERT WAKEFIELD, an individual; DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as Conservator of the Federal National Mortgage Corporation, Intervenor, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a National Association; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Foreign Corporation; and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation, vs. Counter-Plaintiffs, WILLISTON INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; and DESERT LINN CONDOMINIUMS, Counter-Defendants. Case No.: :-cv-00-gmn-pal ORDER Page of

14 Case :-cv-00-gmn-pal Document Filed 0// Page of Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. filed by Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation reddie Mac ff/counter-defendant Williston Investment Group, LLC Williston, and Freddie Mac and FHFA filed a Reply (ECF No.. I. BACKGROUND The present action involves the interplay between Nevada Revised Statutes. and U.S.C. as it relates to Placid Terrace, Henderson, NV, 0 interests in real property located at Lake On July, 00, Robert Wakefield 0 Wakefield obtained a loan in the amount of $,000 from Washington Mutual Bank, FA that was secured by a Deed of Trust on the Property. (Deed of Trust, ECF No. -. The Deed of Trust named WAMU as the beneficiary and California Reconveyance Company as the trustee. (Id.. Freddie Mac purchased the Wakefield Loan on August, 00 and has owned it ever since. See (Exs. A B to Am. Meyer Decl., ECF No. -. conservatorships pursuant to HERA. See (Pollard Decl., ECF No. -. On February, 0 Desert Linn Condominiums (the HOA, recorded a Notice of Delinquent Assessment Lien against 0 the Property for $,.. (Not. of Delinquent Assessment Lien, ECF No. -. Then on April 0, 0, NAS recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell, warning that the HOA would foreclose on its lien unless the assessment payments were brought up to date. (Not. of Default and Election to Sell, ECF No. -. On November, 0, NAS, as agent for the The Court takes judicial notice of Exhibits (ECF Nos. - - s Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No.. The Court also takes judicial notice of Exhibits, (ECF Nos. - -, - - of Williston Response. See Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., F.d, (th Cir.. Each of these documents Page of

15 Case :-cv-00-gmn-pal Document Filed 0// Page of HOA, recorded a Notice of Foreclosure Sale, setting a foreclosure sale of the Property on December, 0. (Not. of Foreclosure Sale, ECF No. -. Williston subsequently purchased the Property as the highest bidder at the March, 0 foreclosure sale. (Foreclosure Deed, ECF No. -. At no time during the process did FHFA, as conservator of See (Pollard Decl., ECF No. -. On September, 00, WAMU submitted to receivership under the Federal Deposit 0 to a purchase and assumption agreement. (See Purchase and Assumption Agreement, ECH No. -. Moreover, on August, 0, Chase substituted Trustee Corps as the trustee of the Deed of Trust. (Substitution of Trustee, ECF No. -. Shortly thereafter, on August, 0, Trustee Corps recorded a Notice of Breach and Default and Election to Sell, indicating that Wakefield had failed to perform obligations pursuant to the Deed of Trust. (Not. of Breach and Default and Election to Sell, ECF No. -. On June, 0, Trustee Corps uly, 0. (Not. -. Freddie Mac subsequently purchased the Property as 0 the highest bidder at the Jul -, and Chase assigned its beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to Freddie Mac on June, 0 (Assignment of Deed of Trust, ECF No. -. Williston initiated this action by filing the original complaint in state court on October, 0, asserting, inter alia, a claim for quiet title against Freddie Mac, MERS, Chase, and MTC Financial, Inc. (Compl. 0, ECF No. -. Chase and Freddie Mac subsequently removed the action to this Court on December 0, 0. (Not. of Removal, ECF No.. On December, 0, Freddie Mac filed its Answer, asserting counterclaims against Williston. (Ans. to Compl. & Counterclaims, ECF No.. On December, 0, Freddie Mac filed its Amended Answer, asserting counterclaims against Williston and the HOA. (Am. Ans. To Page of

16 Case :-cv-00-gmn-pal Document Filed 0// Page of Compl. & Counterclaims, ECF No.. On February 0, 0, this Court entered an Order granting to Intervene. (Intervenor Order, ECF No. 0. Shortly thereafter, on February, 0, Freddie Mac and FHFA filed the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. (MSJ, ECF No.. On June, 0, the Court held a hearing on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, which was attended by the parties in this case as well as the parties in several related cases judgment motion. (Min. of Proceedings, ECF No.. After listening to the arguments presented by all parties present at the hearing, the Court took the motion under submission. 0 II. LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 0 P. (a. Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., U.S., (. A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P ship, F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 00 (citing United States v. Shumway, F.d 0, 0 0 (th Cir.. A Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, U.S., (. In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden- These related cases are: Elmer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, No. :-cv--gmn-njk; and Skylights LLC vs. Fannie Mae, No. :-cv-00-gmn-vcf. Page of

17 Case :-cv-00-gmn-pal Document Filed 0// Page of the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., F.d, 0 (th Cir. 000 (citations omitted. In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: ( by presenting evidence to negate an e; or ( by demonstrating that the nonmoving 0 on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., U.S. at. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., U.S., 0 (0. If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., U.S., (. To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is 0 T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass n, 0 F.d, (th Cir.. In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data. See Taylor v. List, 0 F.d 00, 0 (th Cir.. Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., U.S. at. s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the Page of

18 Case :-cv-00-gmn-pal Document Filed 0// Page of truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, U.S. at. in Id. at. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 0. III. DISCUSSION In the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, Freddie Mac and FHFA request that the that would permit a foreclosure on a superpriority lien to extinguish a property interest of Freddie Mac while it is 0 0 superior to the interest of Plaintif (Mot. Summ. J. :, ECF No.. The Court addressed the applicability of U.S.C. (j( in Skylights LLC v. Fannie Mae, 0 WL 0 (D. Nev. June, 0. After addressing many different arguments regarding the applicability of section (j(, the Court held that the plain language of section (j( prohibits property of FHFA from being subject to a foreclosure without its consent. Id. at *0. Here, Freddie Mac has held an interest in the Property since August, 00. See (Exs. A B to Am. Meyer Decl., ECF No. -. Accordingly, because FHFA held an interest in the Deed of Trust as conservator for Freddie Mac prior to the HOA foreclosure, section (j( he Deed of Trust. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Freddie Mac for Summary Judgment (ECF No. is GRANTED. The Court finds that U.S.C. (j( preempts Nevada Revised Statutes. to the extent that a homeowner asso Page of

19 Case :-cv-00-gmn-pal Document Filed 0// Page of of its super-priority lien cannot extinguish a property interest of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac sale of its super-priority interest on the Proper property secured by the Deed of Trust or convey the Property free and clear to Williston. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Freddie Mac, FHFA, Wakefield, Chase, and MERS are granted summary judgment on Williston DATED this th day of July, 0. 0 Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 0 Page of