NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BANK OF AMERICA, NA, No. 17-16841
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:16-cv-00286-GMN-GWF
v.
NV EAGLES, LLC, et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellants,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 23, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,***
District Judge.
Appellant NV Eagles, LLC, (“NV Eagles”) appeals the district court’s order
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge
for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
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, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev.
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.
2