BANK OF AMERICA NA v. NV EAGLES LLC (2020)

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant NV Eagles, LLC, (“NV Eagles”) appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Bank of America, NA (“BANA”). We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Protect Our Comtys. Found. v. LaCounte, 939 F.3d 1029, 1034 (9th Cir. 2019). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse.

The district court granted summary judgment to BANA on the basis that our decision in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2016) found Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.3116 to be facially unconstitutional as containing an impermissible opt-in notice scheme. Since the district court's decision, however, the Nevada Supreme Court decided SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 134 Nev. 483, 422 P.3d 1248 (2018) (en banc) (“Star Hill”), and rejected Bourne Valley’s interpretation of § 116.3116’s notice provisions. Star Hill explained that the statute incorporates the opt-in and mandatory notice provisions of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.090. Id. at 1253. Accordingly, Bourne Valley no longer controls and the district court's grant of summary judgment was error. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass'n, 920 F.3d 620, 623–24 (9th Cir. 2019).

Based on the foregoing, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment, and remand for the district court to decide whether BANA's tender offer satisfied the requirements of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.3116.

REVERSED and REMANDED.