Barrientos v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC

 and had physical possession of the note with a blank endorsement.
Appellant opposed the motion, arguing that the note was never expressly
assigned to respondent. The district court ultimately granted respondent
summary judgment, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant argues both that the district court
impermissibly granted respondent further time under NRCP 56(f) to
produce an affidavit stating that it had physical possession of the note and
allonge, and that no evidence existed showing that the note was assigned
to respondent. As to the first argument, this situation does not fit within
the confines of NRCP 56(1) because respondent was not requesting more
discovery. Rather, the district court directed respondent to produce
certain evidence—specifically an affidavit regarding whether it had
physical possession of the note and allonge. We are satisfied that the
district court's action in this regard was within its discretion. Div. of
Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 453,
92 P.3d 1239, 1244 (2004) ("District courts have wide discretion to control
the conduct of proceedings pending before them."). And in any event, the
allonge that respondent submitted in opposition to appellant's motion was
sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to respondent's right
to enforce the note, which would defeat appellant's motion for summary
judgment. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029
(2005).
As to appellant's second argument, that summary judgment in
favor of respondent was not proper because there was no explicit
assignment of the note, such an explicit assignment to respondent was not
necessary in this case. If a note is made payable to "blank," then it
becomes bearer paper and the person in physical possession of the note is

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A cgeSeD
 entitled to payment, Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 128 Nev. ,

286 P.3d 249, 261 (2012), or foreclosure if the person has also been
assigned the deed of trust. In this case, respondent provided a copy of the
note, which appellant had signed, and allonge and an affidavit that it was
in possession of the original note and allonge. Respondent also provided a
copy of the deed of trust that had been assigned to it and that appellant
had signed. Appellant did not dispute that she signed the note and deed of
trust and ceased making payments on her note. In these circumstances,
we conclude that the district court did not err in granting respondents
summary judgment. Wood, 121 Nev. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

C.J.

St; , J.
Hardesty Douglas

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Annie Castillo Barrientos
The Castle Law Group, LLP
Ballard Spahr, LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk

'We have considered appellant's other arguments on appeal and
conclude that they do not have merit.

In light of this order, we vacate our May 5, 2014, temporary stay.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e