NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE No. 19-15910
CORPORATION; et al.,
D.C. No.
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 2:15-cv-02381-GMN-NJK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 9, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ROYAL,*** District Judge.
This case arises out of purchases by SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, of various
Nevada residential properties (the “Properties”) at non-judicial foreclosure sales
*
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 C. Ashley Royal, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
involving homeowners association (“HOA”) liens. The earliest of the HOA sales
was in March 2012. Before the HOA sales, Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) or the Federal National Mortgage Association
(“Fannie Mae”) (together, the “Enterprises”) had purchased the loans on the
Properties and acquired the deeds of trust securing the loans.
Nevada law grants an HOA a “superpriority” lien for unpaid assessments; that
lien is superior even to a previously recorded first deed of trust. See Nev. Rev. Stat.
§ 116.3116; Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920
F.3d 620, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). However, in 2008, the Federal
Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) placed the Enterprises into conservatorship.
See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(2), (b)(2)(A)(i). Under the Federal Foreclosure Bar, 12
U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3), “[n]o property of the [FHFA] shall be subject to levy,
attachment, garnishment, foreclosure, or sale without the consent of the Agency, nor
shall any involuntary lien attach to the property of the Agency.” The Federal
Foreclosure Bar preempts the Nevada superpriority lien scheme. See Berezovsky v.
Moniz, 869 F.3d 923, 929-31 (9th Cir. 2017).
In June 2016, the FHFA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae sued SFR to quiet title
to the Properties, arguing that because of the Federal Foreclosure Bar, the non-
judicial foreclosure sales did not extinguish the previously recorded deeds. The
district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. We have jurisdiction of
2
SFR’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. For the reasons stated in our opinion in M&T Bank v. SFR Investments
Pool 1, LLC., No. 18-17395, the six-year period in 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(12)(A)(i)
governs the quiet title claims in this action. The complaint, which was filed less than
six years after the earliest non-judicial foreclosure sale in March 2012, was therefore
timely.
2. The district court did not err in concluding that summary judgment was
appropriate as to twenty Properties for which the record beneficiaries on the deeds
of trust was neither Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, nor their loan servicers at the time of
the foreclosure sales. 1 For all of those Properties, the recorded beneficiary on the
deed of trust was the agent for one of the Enterprises. See Berezovsky, 869 F.3d at
932-33.2
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying SFR’s request
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to defer ruling on the plaintiffs’
summary judgment motion to allow further discovery. See Midbrook Flowerbulbs
1
As to the remaining properties, SFR does not argue on appeal that summary
judgment should have been granted in its favor on this basis.
2
It does not matter that some of the record beneficiaries on some of the deeds
of trust were former servicers who had transferred their servicing rights before the
foreclosure sales. A former servicer remains obligated to act on behalf of the
Enterprises even after the transfer of servicing rights. See Fannie Mae Servicing
Guide § A2-7-03 (2020); Freddie Mac Servicing Guide § 7101.15(a) (2020).
3
Holland B.V. v. Holland Am. Bulb Farms, Inc., 874 F.3d 604, 612 (9th Cir. 2017)
(standard of review). The summary judgment record already made plain that
plaintiffs possessed valid and enforceable interests in all of the Properties at the time
of the foreclosure sales. See e.g., Berezovsky, 869 F.3d at 932-33; Fed. Nat’l Mortg.
Ass’n v. KK Real Estate Inv. Fund, LLC, 772 F. App’x 552, 553 (9th Cir. 2019). A
party seeking Rule 56(d) relief must do “more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
AFFIRMED.3
3
We grant SFR’s unopposed motion for judicial notice of orders in six cases
before the Eighth Judicial District of the State of Nevada.
4