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. Regency Village Owner's Association, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 29, 2017

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
REGENCY VILLAGE OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge

         Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 34), filed by Defendant CSC Acquisitions & Holdings, LLC (“CSC”). Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BANA”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 36), and CSC filed a Reply, (ECF No. 42). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS CSC's Motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         BANA filed its Complaint on March 8, 2016, asserting claims involving the non-judicial foreclosure on real property located at 104 Sir George Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada (the “Property”). (Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1). BANA alleges that CSC purchased the Property at the foreclosure sale and later quitclaimed its interest in the Property to Oscar Martinez-Avilez and Miriam Martinez-Avilez (the “Martinez-Avilezes”). (Id. ¶ 27, 29).

         Specifically, BANA asserts the following causes of action against various parties involved in the foreclosure and subsequent sales of the Property: (1) quiet title with a requested remedy of declaratory judgment; (2) breach of Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 116.1113; (3) wrongful foreclosure; (4) injunctive relief. (Id.). As against CSC, BANA asserts only its claim to quiet title. (Id.). In the instant Motion, CSC argues that: (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case as BANA has failed to allege the amount in controversy is met; and (2) BANA has failed to state a claim against CSC.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Rule 12(b)(1)

         Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the burden of proof is placed on the party asserting that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that “[t]he party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists”). Accordingly, courts presume lack of subject matter jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise in response to the motion to dismiss. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

         “Ordinarily, a case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be dismissed without prejudice so that a plaintiff may reassert his claims in a competent court.” Frigard v. United States, 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). However, where there is no way to cure the jurisdictional defect, dismissal with prejudice is proper. See id.

         B. Rule 12(b)(6)

         Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a court dismiss a cause of action that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See North Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the Court will take all material allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).

         The Court, however, is not required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). A formulaic recitation of a cause of action with conclusory allegations is not sufficient; a plaintiff must plead facts showing that a violation is plausible, not just possible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (emphasis added). “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. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a plaintiff's complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “Prolix, confusing complaints” should be dismissed because “they impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Subject ...


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.