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.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Sunrise Ridge Master Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 2, 2017

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
SUNRISE RIDGE MASTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Presently before the court is defendants 4039 Meadow Foxtail Dr. Trust's (“Foxtail') and Saticoy Bay LLC Series 4039 Meadow Foxtail Dr.'s (“Saticoy”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) filed a response (ECF No. 18), to which Foxtail and Saticoy replied (ECF No. 19).[1]

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 4039 Meadow Foxtail Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89122 (the “property”).

         On August 4, 2005, Arthur and Margaret Baltier obtained a loan from Ryland Mortgage Company in the amount of $238, 075.00 to purchase the property, which was secured by a deed of trust recorded September 26, 2005. (ECF No. 1 at 4). The deed of trust was assigned to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP FKA Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (“BAC”) via assignments of deed of trust recorded April 21, and May 4, 2010. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Effective July 1, 2011, BAC merged into Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”). (ECF No. 1).

         On March 18, 2011, defendant Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”), acting on behalf of defendant Sunrise Ridge Master Homeowners Association (the “HOA”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $1, 103.00. (ECF No. 1 at 4). On July 13, 2011, NAS recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $2, 505.50. (ECF No. 1 at 4). On November 21, 2011, NAS recorded a notice of trustee's sale, stating an amount due of $3, 688.17. (ECF No. 1 at 5). On December 6, 2011, NAS recorded a second notice of trustee's sale, stating an amount due of $6, 183.09. (ECF No. 1 at 5).

         On December 17, 2012, BANA requested a ledger from the HOA/NAS, identifying the super-priority amount allegedly owed to the HOA, which NAS allegedly refused to provide. (ECF No. 1 at 6). On December 27, 2012, BANA tendered $1, 018.12 to NAS, which NAS allegedly refused. (ECF No. 1 at 6).

         On February 1, 2013, Foxtail purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $6, 608.00. (ECF No. 1 at 6). A trustee's deed upon sale in favor of Foxtail was recorded on February 6, 2013. (ECF No. 1 at 6).

         After the foreclosure sale had extinguished the deed of trust, it was assigned to plaintiff Nationstar via assignment of deed of trust on July 10, 2013. (ECF No. 1 at 4).

         Foxtail executed a grant, bargain, sale deed in favor of Saticoy recorded September 30, 2013. (ECF No. 1 at 6).

         On October 10, 2016, Nationstar filed the underlying complaint, alleging four causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against the HOA and NAS; (3) wrongful foreclosure against the HOA and NAS; and (4) injunctive relief against Saticoy. (ECF No. 1).

         In the instant motion, Foxtail and Saticoy move to dismiss Nationstar's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 13).

         I. 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 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.