WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Banc of America… v. Sfr Investments Pool 1, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee
for the Certificateholders of Banc of America
Funding Corporation, Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2005-B,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-16566
D.C. No.
2:20-cv-01277-GMN-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and MENDOZA and DE ALBA, Circuit
Judges.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Banc of
America Funding Corporation, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-B
* 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
APR 15 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-16566
(“Wells Fargo”), appeals from the district court’s order granting SFR Investment
Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion,
concluding that the statute-of-limitations period began once the foreclosure sale
occurred and that Wells Fargo’s quiet-title claim was time barred. After Wells
Fargo filed its appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its opinion in U.S. Bank,
N.A. v. Thunder Properties, Inc., 503 P.3d 299 (Nev. 2022) (“Thunder
Properties”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; review statute-of-
limitations dismissals de novo, Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710,
711 (9th Cir. 1993); vacate the district court’s order; and remand this case for
further proceedings consistent with Thunder Properties.
In Thunder Properties, the Nevada Supreme Court held that: (1) declaratory
relief actions are not categorically exempt from statutes of limitations; (2) actions
to determine the validity of a lien are subject to a four-year statute of limitations;
and (3) the statute of limitations is not triggered until the titleholder affirmatively
repudiates the lien, which does not necessarily happen at a foreclosure sale. 503
P.3d at 303–07. Relevant here, the court held that a “foreclosure sale, standing
alone, is not sufficient to trigger” the statute-of-limitations period. Id. at 306.
The district court, which decided SFR’s motion without the benefit of
Thunder Properties, held that the statute of limitations period began after the
foreclosure sale in 2012. Because this determination is inconsistent with the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-16566
Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, we vacate the district court’s September 13,
2021 order, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with Thunder
Properties.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --