IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
FERRELL STREET TRUST, No. 83981
Appellant,
vs.
U.S. BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL rqiLE
ASSOCIATION,
Res s ondent. OCT i
ELIZABETi- A. BRowN
CLE
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE BY
E UT: CLERK
This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion
to dismiss in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Jasmin
D. Lilly-Spells, Judge. Reviewing the order de novo, Buzz Stew, LLC v. City
of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008), we affirm.'
In 2019, this court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of
respondent and against appellant's predecessor. See Cogburn St. Tr. v. U.S.
Bank, N.A., No. 74516, 2019 WL 2339538 (Nev. May 31, 2019) (Order of
Affirmance). In doing so, we concluded that the subject property remained
encumbered by respondent's deed of trust because respondent made a
superpriority tender before appellant's predecessor purchased the property
at an HOA foreclosure sale. Id. at *1-2.
After this court affirmed the summary judgment, respondent
recorded a Notice of Default in September 2020, which indicated that the
former homeowners had been in default on their loan payments since March
2011. This prompted appellant to file the underlying quiet title action in
2021, wherein appellant alleged that NRS 106.240's 10-year limitations
period was triggered around March 2011 and that it had expired 10 years
'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument
is not warranted.
later, such that respondent's deed of trust no longer encumbered the
property. Respondent filed an NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss appellant's
complaint, which the district court granted. In doing so, it rejected
appellant's request to conduct discovery into whether respondent's
predecessors had sent a comrnunication to the forrner homeowners that
accelerated their loan for purposes of making it "wholly due" under NRS
106.240.
Appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion
in dismissing its complaint without allowing appellant to conduct discovery.
See Aviation Ventures, Inc. v. Joan Morris, Inc., 121 Nev. 113, 118, 110 P.3d
59, 62 (2005) (reviewing a district court's refusal to allow discovery for an
abuse of discretion). We disagree. Even assuming (1) acceleration of a loan
makes the loan "wholly due" for purposes of triggering NRS 106.240's 10-
year time frame, and (2) a communication between a lender and a
homeowner before a Notice of Default is recorded could accelerate the loan,
we still conclude that the district court was within its discretion to deny
appellant's request to conduct discovery.2 Namely, we agree with
respondent that appellant's attempt to unearth a decade-old
communication that may or may not have occurred between nonparties to
this litigation is simply an attempt to undermine the effect of our previous
judgment pertaining to the same deed of trust. See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc.,
364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) ("District courts need not condone the
2 Much of appellant's argument is premised on its belief that this
second assumption was actually a holding in our recent decision in SFR
Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 22, 507 P.3d
194 (2022). We reiterate that we made no such holding. Id. at 197
("Assuming Countrywide was legally permitted to accelerate the loan before
it recorded the notice of default . . . ." (emphasis added)).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(I )1 1947A
2
use of discovery to engage in fishing expeditions." (internal quotation marks
and alterations omitted)). As the United States Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals has put it, lajt some point, litigation rnust come to an end. That
point has now been reached." Facebook, Inc. u. Pac. Nw. Software, Inc., 640
F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.3
, C.J.
Parraguirre
, Sr.J.
Herndon
cc: Hon. Jasmin D. Lilly-Spells, District Judge
Persi J. Mishel, Settlement Judge
Roger P. Croteau & Associates, Ltd.
Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
3The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) )947A
3