NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In May 2004, Mark Adair took out a $570,000 loan to purchase residential property in Las Vegas, Nevada. After a string of assignments, the deed of trust (DOT) securing the property was ultimately assigned to Capital One, N.A. (Capital One). Adair failed to pay dues to the Aurora Estates Owner's Association, Inc. (HOA), and the HOA's agent began foreclosure proceedings against him after obtaining a "superpriority lien" on the property. In response, the loan servicer at the time, Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) sought to cure the default and protect the DOT by tendering the superpriority lien amount, but the HOA's agent rejected the tender. The HOA's agent then foreclosed on the property, and sold it to Saticoy Bay for $60,500.
On October 5, 2016, Capital One filed this action seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the DOT was not extinguished by the HOA's foreclosure sale. After a stay, Saticoy Bay filed an answer and counterclaim against Capital One seeking a declaration that Saticoy Bay owned the property free and clear of the DOT. On June 14, 2019, Capital One moved for partial summary on its declaratory judgment claim, as well as Saticoy Bay's counterclaim. After a hearing, the district court granted Capital One's motion. On August 10, 2020, Saticoy Bay filed a motion to alter or amend the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), citing the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in Anthony S. Noonan, IRA v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n EE, 466 P.3d 1276 (Nev. 2020). The district court denied Saticoy Bay's motion on the merits. Saticoy Bay timely appealed both the grant of summary judgment and the denial of relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo, see Tschida v. Motl, 924 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (9th Cir. 2019), and the denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief for abuse of discretion, see Riley v. Filson, 933 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2019), we affirm.
Saticoy Bay raises several arguments on appeal, but none has merit, as each has been foreclosed by binding authority from the Nevada Supreme Court.
Saticoy Bay also argues that Capital One failed to demonstrate any excuse for failing to tender the superpriority lien amount. This argument fails because the record evidence, including the rejection letters from the HOA's agent, indicates the tender was rejected. And in any event, formal tender is excused when the receiving party "had a known policy of rejecting such payments." 7510 Perla Del Mar Ave. Tr. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 458 P.3d 348, 349 (Nev. 2020).
Because each of the arguments raised by Saticoy Bay have been squarely foreclosed by on-point Nevada Supreme Court authority, the district court's judgment is