Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Ruddell, 380 F. Supp. 3d 1096

In 2006 Emily Ruddell purchased real property in Las Vegas secured by a senior deed of trust later assigned to BNY (assignment dated January 21, 2010).
Wigwam Ranch Square HOA recorded delinquency, default, and a trustee’s sale notices between 2010–2012, then foreclosed on December 5, 2012; a Trustee’s Deed in favor of SFR was recorded December 10, 2012 (sale price $6,200).
BNY filed suit April 18, 2017 seeking quiet title, declaratory relief, foreclosure direction, and injunctions, alleging defects in the HOA foreclosure (facial and as-applied constitutional challenges, improper notices, rejection of tender, commercial unreasonableness).
SFR counterclaimed and cross-claimed seeking declaratory relief that the HOA foreclosure vested title in SFR; SFR moved for summary judgment. BNY also moved for summary judgment.
The district court previously stayed the case pending a Nevada Supreme Court certified-question decision; after that decision, the court lifted the stay and considered renewed summary judgment motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Statute of limitations for BNY’s claims	BNY contends claims survive because SFR v. U.S. Bank (2014) changed law or tolling/relation-back applies	SFR argues claims accrued at HOA foreclosure (Dec 2012) and were filed after limitations expired	Court: Claims accrued at the foreclosure; limitations (3- or 4-year) bar BNY’s claims; tolling/relation-back not shown; summary judgment for SFR
2) Validity of HOA nonjudicial foreclosure under NRS 116	BNY argues foreclosure violated NRS 116 notice/priority rules and constitutional rights	SFR contends NRS 116 applied at sale and BNY’s challenges are time-barred and meritless	Court: Because limitations bar BNY’s claims and no preserved legal defect shown, foreclosure is valid
3) Bona fide purchaser status of SFR	BNY asserts SFR could not be BFP because it bought knowing litigation risk	SFR says bona fide purchaser doctrine not necessary where no legal defect is shown	Court: No legally cognizable defect to set aside sale; BFP doctrine not required; SFR owns title
4) Availability of declaratory/retrospective relief	BNY seeks prospective declaratory relief protecting its deed of trust	SFR argues BNY’s requested relief is retrospective and time-barred	Court: Relief sought is retrospective; subject to limitations; dismissed

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (no genuine issue when record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for nonmoving party)
Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789 (9th Cir.) (summary judgment view-of-evidence rule)
SFR Investments Pool 1 v. U.S. Bank, 334 P.3d 408 (Nev. 2014) (interpretation of NRS 116 applied retroactively)
K&P Homes v. Christiana Trust, 398 P.3d 292 (Nev. 2017) (SFR decision is an interpretation, not change, of NRS 116.3116)
Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 405 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2017) (burden on party seeking to set aside foreclosure sale)
City of N. Las Vegas v. State Local Gov’t Employee–Mgmt. Relations Bd., 261 P.3d 1071 (Nev. 2011) (equitable tolling requires excusable delay)
Zuill v. Shanahan, 80 F.3d 1366 (9th Cir. 1996) (declaratory relief subject to statute of limitations)