United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 4039
Meadow Foxtail Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89122 (the
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
executed a grant, bargain, sale deed in favor of Saticoy
recorded September 30, 2013. (ECF No. 1 at 6).
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).
instant motion, Foxtail and Saticoy move to dismiss
Nationstar's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 13).
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).
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).
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.
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.
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 ...