Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Arlington West Twilight Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 26, 2017

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiffs,
v.
ARLINGTON WEST TWILIGHT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendant Arlington West Twilight Homeowners Association's (the “HOA”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) filed a response (ECF No. 22), to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 30).

         Also before the court is the HOA's motion to dismiss the crossclaims filed by defendant/crossclaimant Thomas Jessup, LLC, Series IV (“Jessup IV”). (ECF No. 27). Jessup IV filed a response (ECF No. 31), to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 32).

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 9179 Smugglers Beach Court, Las Vegas, Nevada 89178 (the “property”).

         On March 26, 2008, Roy and Michelle Kinard (the “Kinards”) purchased the property by way of a loan from DHI Mortgage Company, LTD. in the amount of $294, 956.00, which was secured by a deed of trust recorded on March 31, 2008. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) insured the note and deed of trust. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Later, the deed of trust was assigned to BANA via an assignment of deed of trust. (ECF No. 1 at 4).

         On October 21, 2010, Alessi & Koenig, LLC (“A&K”), acting on behalf of the HOA, recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $850.00. (ECF No. 1 at 4). On January 31, 2011, A&K recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $1, 807.00. (ECF No. 1 at 4-5).

         On May 10, 2011, BANA remitted payment to the HOA to satisfy to super-priority amount owed to the HOA. (ECF No. 1 at 5).

         On August 14, 2012, A&K recorded a notice of trustee's sale, stating an amount due of $3, 256.00 and scheduling the sale for September 12, 2012. (ECF No. 1 at 5). Defendant Thomas Jessup, LLC (“Jessup”) purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $7, 350.00. (ECF No. 1 at 6). A trustee's deed upon sale in favor of Jessup was recorded on October 2, 2012. (ECF No. 1 at 6).

         Jessup IV acquired the property from Jessup via a quit claim deed recorded on May 31, 2013. (ECF No. 1 at 6).

         On March 24, 2016, BANA filed the underlying complaint, alleging four causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against the HOA and A&K; (3) wrongful foreclosure against the HOA and A&K[1]; and (4) injunctive relief against Jessup IV. (ECF No. 1).

         On April 15, 2016, Jessup IV filed an answer and cross/counterclaims, alleging two causes of action: (1) quiet title against all parties; and (2) declaratory relief against BANA. (ECF No. 11).

         In the instant motions, the HOA moves to dismiss both BANA's complaint and Jessup IV's crossclaim. (ECF Nos. 21, 27).

         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 elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. at 678.

         Second, the court must consider whether the factual allegations in the complaint allege a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff's complaint alleges facts that allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 678.

         Where the complaint does not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has “alleged-but not shown-that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). When the allegations in a complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, plaintiff's claim must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

         The Ninth Circuit addressed post-Iqbal pleading standards in Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). The Starr court stated, in relevant part:

First, to be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint or counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively. Second, the factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.