Tucker v. South Shore Villas Homeowners Association, 2:15-cv-00961

Background

Freddie Tucker fell behind on HOA dues; his home was sold at a nonjudicial HOA foreclosure sale in September 2012 and purchased by Lido Isle Court Trust.
Tucker (and co‑plaintiff Ida Hanson) sued multiple times in Nevada state court and federal court challenging the sale; state courts and the Nevada Supreme Court rejected their claims and found the HOA sale extinguished Tucker’s interests. Tucker did not appeal earlier adverse state rulings.
Tucker filed this (his fifth) federal action alleging a fraudulent scheme and seeking to quiet title, damages, and declaratory/injunctive relief; the district court dismissed under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine as a de facto appeal of state‑court judgments, with prejudice and without leave to amend. The court also declared the plaintiffs vexatious litigants for further claims about this sale.
Plaintiffs moved to reconsider, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo (holding Nevada’s pre‑2015 HOA nonjudicial foreclosure process facially violated lenders’ due‑process rights) and asked to be allowed to amend to plead a Bourne Valley‑based declaratory claim.
The district court denied reconsideration: Bourne Valley was not an intervening change (it was decided before the court’s order and plaintiffs had not raised it earlier), Bourne Valley protects mortgage lenders (not individual owners like Tucker) and First Fidelity (the alleged lender) is not a party, and allowing reconsideration would impermissibly relitigate state‑court judgments in federal court under Rooker–Feldman.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the dismissal with prejudice should be reconsidered	Tucker argued Bourne Valley creates an intervening change in law that undermines state rulings and permits federal relief; sought leave to amend	Defendants argued Bourne Valley was not new, applies to lenders not Tucker, and plaintiffs waived the argument; federal court still lacks jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman	Denied — Bourne Valley not an intervening change here, plaintiffs waived it, it does not help Tucker, and Rooker–Feldman bars relitigation of state judgments
Whether Bourne Valley permits Tucker to challenge prior state judgments in federal court	Bourne Valley allegedly renders the prior HOA foreclosure unlawful, so plaintiffs claim federal relief is proper	Defendants contend Bourne Valley protects mortgage lenders, not Tucker, and state courts’ rulings remain binding; relitigation in federal court is improper	Denied — Bourne Valley does not authorize Tucker’s federal relitigation of state rulings
Whether plaintiffs waived Bourne Valley argument	Plaintiffs argued reconsideration is warranted despite timing	Defendants pointed out Bourne Valley was decided before plaintiffs’ opposition and thus the argument was waived	Court held plaintiffs waived the argument and could not use it to reopen the dismissal
Whether the dismissal with prejudice and vexatious‑litigant designation should be vacated	Plaintiffs asked to vacate the with‑prejudice dismissal and the vexatious designation relying on Bourne Valley	Defendants maintained plaintiffs had no good‑faith basis at filing (case was filed before Bourne Valley) and repeated litigation justifies vexatious designation	Court upheld dismissal with prejudice and the vexatious‑litigant finding

Key Cases Cited

Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding Nevada’s pre‑2015 nonjudicial HOA foreclosure scheme facially violated mortgage lenders’ due‑process rights)
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, 334 P.3d 408 (Nev. 2014) (Nevada Supreme Court: HOA superpriority lien foreclosure extinguishes junior interests)
Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the Rooker–Feldman doctrine and its bar on federal review of state‑court judgments)