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.

U.S. Bank National Association v. Braewood Heritage Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 10, 2017

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs,
v.
BRAEWOOD HERITAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently 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).

         I. Facts

         This 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).

         In 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).

         Since 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).

         U.S. 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).[1]

         In the 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.

         II. Legal Standards

         A. Fed R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1)

         Under 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). . . . . . .

         B. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6)

         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 ...


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.