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.

RJRN Holdings LLC v. Davis

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 15, 2017

RJRN HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
RHONDA DAVIS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is a renewed motion to dismiss filed by defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP ("BAC") and Carrington Mortgage Services ("CMS" and collectively, with BAC, as "defendants"). (ECF No. 47). Plaintiff RJRN Holdings LLC ("RJRN") filed a response (ECF No. 56), [1]to which defendants replied (ECF No. 62). I. Facts This case involves a dispute over real property located at 5234 Fire Night Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89122 (the "property").

         Rhonda Davis obtained a loan to purchase the property, which was secured by a deed of trust in favor of Pulte Mortgage LLC and recorded on January 6, 2009. (ECF No. 4 at 6).

         Pulte Mortgage LLC transferred the beneficial interest in the deed of trust to BAC via a corporate assignment deed recorded on August 11, 2010. (ECF No. 4 at 6).

         Hacienda North Homeowners' Association (the "HOA") claimed a lien on the property for assessments accruing pursuant to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions ("CC&Rs"). (ECF No. 4). The HO A conducted a foreclosure sale pursuant to NRS Chapter 116. (ECF No. 4 at 6).

         Rex Archambault ("Archambault") purchased the property at the foreclosure sale and recorded the trustee's deed upon sale on April 18, 1012. (ECF No. 4 at 6). RJRN obtained title to the property via quitclaim deed recorded on February 10, 2014. (ECF No. 4 at 6).

         CMS recorded a request for notification of default on December 14, 2014. (ECF No. 4 at 7).

         RJRN filed the original complaint in state court on June 6, 2015, alleging three causes of action: (1) declaratory relief/quiet title; (2) preliminary and permanent injunction; and (3) slander to title. (ECF No. 4). Defendants removed the action to federal court on July 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1).

         In the instant motion, defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 47).

         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. at 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 plaintiffs 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.