NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUG 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST 100, LLC, a Nevada limited No. 13-16618
liability company,
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00431-JCM-
Plaintiff - Appellant, PAL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, a National
Association,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
CITY OF LAS VEGAS, a political
subdivision,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2015**
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant First 100, LLC (“First 100”) appeals the dismissal of its suit to
quiet title on a property located at 200 Mission Newport Lane #201 in Las Vegas,
Nevada. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we
do not restate them except as necessary to explain our decision. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
The district court dismissed First 100’s suit based on its determination that a
homeowner’s association (“HOA”) foreclosure based on a super-priority lien under
Nevada law does not extinguish a first security deed of trust. However, the Nevada
Supreme Court has since held in SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A.,
334 P.3d 408 (Nev. 2014), that an HOA has a true super-priority lien on a property
for nine months of unpaid assessments, and foreclosure on this lien extinguishes all
other interests in that property. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal, to the
extent it was based on a contrary interpretation of the Nevada HOA super-priority
statutory scheme, was erroneous. See, e.g., Olympic Sports Prods., Inc. v.
Universal Athletic Sales Co.,760 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 1985) (federal courts “are
bound to follow the decisions of a state’s highest court in interpreting that state’s
law”) (citation omitted).
2
We accordingly REVERSE the district court’s dismissal and REMAND for
further proceedings. This remand is without prejudice to any constitutional
arguments the parties may make below, which the district court may address in the
first instance. We note that the State of Nevada or the Federal Housing Finance
Agency may wish to intervene in the proceedings below, in light of the possible
constitutional issues that the district court may address on remand.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3