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. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 164 Golden Crown

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 21, 2017

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiffs,
v.
SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 164 GOLDEN CROWN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendant Paradise Hills Landscape Maintenance Association, Inc.'s (“Paradise”) motion to dismiss the complaint. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BoA”) filed a response (ECF No. 15), and defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 16).

         I. Introduction

         On January 22, 2016, plaintiff filed its complaint, alleging six claims in relation to defendant's foreclosure and subsequent non-judicial foreclosure sale on the real property at 164 Golden Crown Avenue, Henderson, Nevada 89002. (ECF No. 1).

         An August 8, 2008, deed of trust, securing a $319, 978 loan, was executed by purchasers of the property, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) was the beneficiary. (Id.). On September 30, 2014, MERS recorded its assignment of the deed of trust and note to plaintiff. (Id.).

         On April 12, 2011, Paradise's trustee, Homeowner Association Services (“HAS”), recorded a notice of claim of lien-homeowner assessment on behalf of Paradise.[1] (Id.). HAS then, on December 14, 2011, recorded a notice of default and election to sell under notice of delinquent assessment lien against the property. (Id.). On March 15, 2012, plaintiff attempted to pay the super-priority lien debt of $472.50, but the payment was rejected on March 30, 2012. (Id.).

         Plaintiff's servicer recorded a request for notification of default on December 3, 2014; however, HAS allegedly recorded a notice of sale against the property for Paradise on July 21, 2015. (Id.). Co-defendant Saticoy Bay, LLC Series 164 Golden Crown (“Saticoy”) acquired the property for $9, 000. (Id.). At that time, the amount outstanding on the original loan allegedly exceeded $313, 741.76, and the fair market value of the property was roughly $274, 557.00. (Id.).

         As a result of these offered facts, plaintiff asserts the following six claims or requests for relief against defendants: (1) quiet title/declarative relief against both defendants; (2) a preliminary injunction against Saticoy; (3) unjust enrichment against both defendants; (4) wrongful foreclosure against Paradise; (5) negligence against Paradise; and (6) negligence per se against Paradise. (Id.).

         II. Legal Standard

         The court may dismiss a plaintiff's 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). Although rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it does require more than labels and conclusions. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Furthermore, a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (citation omitted). Rule 8 does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Id. at 678-79.

         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.” Id. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. When a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, and shows only a mere possibility of entitlement, the complaint does not meet the requirements to show plausibility of entitlement to relief. Id.

         In Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step approach district courts are to apply when considering a motion to dismiss. Id. First, the court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint. However, this requirement is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Id. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. 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. at 679. 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 held:

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 unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation. Id.

         III. Discussion

         a. ...


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.