Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Sundance at the Shadows Homeowners' Association

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Plaintiff-counter-
defendant-Appellee,
v.
SUNDANCE AT THE SHADOWS
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION,
Defendant,
and
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,
Defendant-counter-claimant-
Appellant.
No. 19-16889
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-01757-JAD-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2022**
San Jose, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
* 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).
FILED
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Real property in Nevada was sold at a homeowners’ association foreclosure
sale. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was in conservatorship and
owned the deed of trust at the time. The loan servicer, Plaintiff Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, sought to quiet title. The purchaser of the property, Defendant
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, then brought a crossclaim also seeking to quiet title.
Defendant contends that it acquired title free and clear of all preexisting lien
interests, but the district court held that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) precludes
extinguishment of lien interests through foreclosure without the consent of the
Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”). FHFA did not consent.
Accordingly, the court entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant
timely appeals.
The only issue on appeal concerns the timeliness of Plaintiff’s claim. The
foreclosure sale occurred on August 2, 2013, and Plaintiff filed its complaint on
June 26, 2017, more than three years later. Defendant contends that a three-year
statute of limitations for tort claims applies, so that Plaintiff’s claim is untimely.
We decided this very issue in M&T Bank v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 963
F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2020), after the briefing in the present case was complete. We
held that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(12)(A)(i) governs and that it provides a six-year
statute of limitations. 963 F.3d at 856. Accordingly, reviewing the grant of

-- 2 of 3 --

3
summary judgment de novo, Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 665 (9th
Cir. 2003), we affirm the judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.
Defendant’s Motion to Certify a Question of Law to the Nevada Supreme
Court, Docket No. 31, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --