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 New York Mellon v. Southern Highlands Community Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 9, 2017

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Plaintiffs,
v.
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS COMMUITY ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendant Southern Highlands Community Association's (the “HOA”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”) filed a response (ECF No. 49), to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 50).

         Also before the court is defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's (“SFR”) motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 51), in which the HOA joined (ECF No. 60). BNYM filed a response (ECF No. 65), to which SFR replied (ECF No. 67).

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 11545 Cantina Terlano Place, Las Vegas, Nevada 89141 (the “property”). On August 11, 2005, Salma Khan obtained a loan in the amount of $838, 150.00 to purchase the property, which was secured by a deed of trust recorded on October 10, 2005. (ECF No. 1).

         The deed of trust was assigned to BNYM via an assignment of deed of trust recorded on December 23, 2009. (ECF No. 1).

         On January 27, 2011, defendant Alessi & Koenig, LLC (“A&K”), acting on behalf of the HOA, recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $895.02. (ECF No. 1).

         On April 12, 2011, Khan recorded a loan modification agreement increasing the principal balance under the loan to $1, 000, 706.62. (ECF No. 1).

         On April 20, 2011, A&K recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $2, 161.47. (ECF No. 1). On September 8, 2011, A&K recorded a notice of trustee's sale, stating an amount due of $3, 709.87. (ECF No. 1). On July 11, 2012, SFR purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $9, 200.00. (ECF No. 1). A trustee's deed upon sale in favor of SFR was recorded on July 24, 2012. (ECF No. 1).

         On May 25, 2016, BNYM filed the underlying complaint. (ECF No. 1). On October 12, 2016, BNYM filed an amended complaint, alleging seven causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against A&K and the HOA; (3) wrongful foreclosure against A&K and the HOA; (4) injunctive relief against SFR; (5) deceptive trade practices against A&K and the HOA; (6) judicial foreclosure against Khan; and (7) alternative claim for breach of contract against Khan. (ECF No. 12).[1]

         On October 24, 2016, SFR filed an answer and counterclaim against BNYM for quiet title/declaratory relief and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 19).

         In the instant motions, the HOA moves to dismiss BNYM's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 43), and SFR moves for partial summary judgment on an issue of law (ECF No. 51). The court will address each as it sees fit.

         II. Legal Standards

         A. Motion to Dismiss

         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.