U.S. Bank National Association v. Saticoy Bay LLC

          ORDER

          JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Presently before the court is defendant Saticoy Bay LLC, Series 5526 Moonlight Garden Street's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff USROF III Legal Trust 2015-1, by U.S. Bank, N.A., as legal title trustee filed a response (ECF No. 10), to which defendant replied (ECF No. 11).

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 5526 Moonlight Garden Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 (the “property”).

         On May 29, 2009, Charles and Danielle Bohannan (the “Bohannans”) obtained a loan in the amount of $235, 653.00 and insured by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) to purchase the property. (ECF No. 1 at 3). On that same day, the Bohannans executed a deed of trust identifying Pulte Mortgage, LLC as the lender, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the beneficiary, and First American Title as the trustee. (ECF No. 1 at 3).

         On December 3, 2010, Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”), as the trustee of the homeowners' association (the “HOA”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien. (ECF No. 1 at 4). On July 26, 2011, NAS recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien. (ECF No. 1 at 4).

         On February 29, 2012, NAS recorded a notice of trustee's sale. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Moonlight Garden Street Trust purchased the property for $4, 000.00 at the foreclosure sale. (ECF No. 1 at 4-5). On September 30, 2013, the property was conveyed to defendant without consideration pursuant to a grant bargain sale deed. (ECF No. 1 at 5).

         On October 1, 2015, U.S. Bank, N.A., as trustee for SROF-2013-83 REMIC Trust 1 assigned the deed of trust and note to plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 at 3-4).

         On June 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging three causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory relief; (2) a preliminary injunction; and (3) unjust enrichment. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that it tendered the superpriority portion of the HOA lien, thereby exercising its right to cure. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff maintains that its tender eliminated the superpriority portion of the HOA lien, resulting in the property being purchased subject to plaintiff's deed of trust. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff further alleges that the foreclosure sale and notices failed to comply with Chapter 116 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. (ECF No. 1).

         In the instant motion, defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 6).

         II. Legal Standard

         A court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide “[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).

         “Factual allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (citation omitted).

         In Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step approach district courts are to apply when considering motions to dismiss. First, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint; however, legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 678-79. Mere recitals of the ...