United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Tierra De Las Palmas Owners
Association's (the “HOA”) motion to dismiss.
(ECF No. 15). Plaintiff CitiMortgage, Inc.
(“CMI”) filed a response (ECF No. 17), to which
the HOA replied (ECF No. 19).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 5143
Marshall Island Court, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89031 (the
“property”). (ECF No. 1 at 2).
5, 2006, Lakeshia Spencer obtained a loan from Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc. in the amount of $164, 000.00, which was
secured by a deed of trust recorded on May 15, 2006. (ECF No.
1 at 3). On December 13, 2011, the deed of trust was assigned
to CMI via an assignment of deed of trust. (ECF No. 1 at 3).
October 7, 2011, defendant Absolute Collection Services, LLC
(“ACS”), acting on behalf of the HOA, recorded a
notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due
of $816.71. (ECF No. 1). On February 10, 2012, ACS recorded a
notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the
delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $1,
696.98. (ECF No. 1).
February 17, 2012, CMI requested a ledger from the HOA
through its agent ACS, identifying the super-priority amount
allegedly owed, but the HOA refused to respond. (ECF No. 1).
December 7, 2012, ACS recorded a notice of trustee's
sale, stating an amount due of $3, 315.30. (ECF No. 1). On
May 14, 2013, the HOA foreclosed on the property. (ECF No.
1). Defendant Marshall Family Trust (“MFT”)
purchased the property for $6, 500.00. (ECF No. 1). A
trustee's deed in favor of MFT was recorded May 16, 2013.
(ECF No. 1).
March 18, 2016, CMI filed the underlying complaint, alleging
four claims of relief: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment
against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against
the HOA and the ACS; (3) wrongful foreclosure against the HOA
and ACS; and (4) injunctive relief against MFT. (ECF No. 1).
instant motion, the HOA moves to dismiss CMI's complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). (ECF No. 15). The court will address each in turn.
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).
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).
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.
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 ...