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.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A., v. Green Valley Pecos Homeowners Association, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 9, 2017

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Plaintiffs,
v.
GREEN VALLEY PECOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendant Green Valley Pecos Homeowners Association, Inc.'s (the “HOA”) amended motion to dismiss plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, N.A.'s claims against that party. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 30), and there was no reply.[1]

         I. Introduction

         This case is based on the events surrounding the September 2012 non-judicial foreclosure sale of the real property at 2614 White Pine Dr., Henderson, Nevada. (ECF No. 1). Relevantly, plaintiff initiated the instant case on February 8, 2016. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has asserted the following claims against defendant: (1) quiet title, to be satisfied through the remedy of declaratory judgment; (2) breach of Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 116.1113; and (3) wrongful foreclosure. (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. Bad Faith

         Here, plaintiff alleges the following regarding its claim for relief under NRS 116.1113:

If it is determined [HOA's] sale extinguished the senior deed of trust notwithstanding the deficiencies, violations, and improper actions described herein, [HOA's] and Absolute Collections[ Services Inc.'s (“ACS”)] breach of their obligation of good faith will cause HSBC to suffer general and special damages in the amount equal to the fair market value of the property or the unpaid ...

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.