United States District Court, D. Nevada
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs,
BRAEWOOD HERITAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.
before the court is defendant Braewood Heritage
Association’s (“HOA”) motion to dismiss.
(ECF No. 13). Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association as
trustee for Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10 mortgage
loan pass through certificate series 2005-10 (“U.S.
Bank”) filed a response (ECF No. 17), to which the HOA
replied (ECF No. 21).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 3364
Royce Court, Las Vegas, Nevada (“the property”).
(ECF No. 1 at 2). The property was purchased in 2004, with
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
(“MERS”) as the original beneficiary to the deed
of trust, which was recorded on August 31, 2015. (ECF No. 1
at 2–3). In 2013, a corporate assignment of deed of
trust was recorded assigning beneficial interest in the
property to U.S. Bank. (ECF No. 1 at 3).
2011, the HOA’s trustee recorded a notice of delinquent
assessment against the property. (ECF No. 1 at 4).
Approximately one month after this notice was recorded, BAC
Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”) (U.S.
Bank’s predecessor-in-interest) contacted the
HOA’s trustee regarding the amount of the lien. (ECF
No. 1 at 4). The trustee never responded to the request so
BAC was unable to pay the lien. (ECF No. 1 at 4).
the lien amount was never paid, the HOA’s trustee filed
a notice of foreclosure sale under notice of delinquent
assessment lien against the property. (ECF No. 1 at 4). The
foreclosure sale occurred on February 20, 2014, and the HOA
purchased the property for $8,689.67. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Seven
days after the sale, a foreclosure deed was recorded, and the
HOA claimed its interest in the property. (ECF No. 1 at 4).
The HOA then transferred its interest in the property nearly
a year later via quitclaim deed to Ray Bell and Darren Olds
(“buyers”). (ECF No. 1 at 4).
Bank alleges six causes of action: (1) quiet title against
all defendants; (2) preliminary injunction against the
buyers; (3) unjust enrichment against all defendants; (4)
wrongful foreclosure against the HOA; (5) negligence against
the HOA; and (6) negligence per se against the HOA.
(ECF No. 1).
instant motion, the HOA moves to dismiss the claims that were
alleged against it under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 13). The court will address
each in turn.
Fed R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1)
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1), a defendant may move to dismiss a
claim because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Once the defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to
show that the court does, in fact, have subject matter
jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
U.S. 555, 561 (1992). The court has leeway to review evidence
beyond that alleged in the complaint, so long as the court
does not convert “the motion to dismiss into a motion
for summary judgement.” Safe Air v. Meyer, 373
F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2004). . . . . . .
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6)
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 inference that the defendant is
liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 678.
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 ...