United States District Court, D. Nevada
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff(s),
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., Defendant(s).
before the court is defendant San Marino Property Owners
Association's (the “HOA”) motion to dismiss.
(ECF No. 14). Plaintiffs U.S. Bank, National Association, as
trustee for GSAA 2006-1 (“US Bank”) and SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc. (“STM” and collectively, with U.S.
Bank, as “plaintiffs”) have failed to file a
timely response. Defendant/counterclaimant SFR Investments
Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) filed a limited response (ECF
No. 20), to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 23).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 10324
Neopolitan Place, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144 (the
“property”). On October 13, 2005, Richard
Nicholas Bell obtained a loan in the amount of $256, 000.00
to purchase the property, which was secured by a deed of
trust recorded on October 21, 2005. (ECF No. 1).
Bell defaulted on the loan and failed to pay HOA assessments,
Alessi & Koenig, LLC (“A&K”), on behalf
of the HOA, recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien,
a notice of default and election to sell, and a notice of
sale. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs allege that these notices did
not comply with the applicable statutory requirements. (ECF
No. 1). Plaintiffs assert, inter alia, that the
notice of sale failed to set forth a foreclosure date and
that none of the notices stated the superpriority amount
owed. (ECF No. 1).
September 5, 2012, the HOA purchased the property at the
foreclosure sale for $6, 796.04. (ECF No. 1). A trustee's
deed upon sale in favor of the HOA was recorded on February
14, 2013. (ECF No. 1).
March 12, 2013, the HOA conveyed its interest in the property
to SFR via a quitclaim deed recorded on March 12, 2013. (ECF
No. 1). After the foreclosure sale extinguished the deed of
trust, STM assigned the deed of trust to U.S. Bank via an
assignment of deed of trust recorded June 10, 2013. (ECF No.
10, 2017, plaintiffs filed the underlying complaint against
the HOA and SFR, alleging six causes of action: (1) quiet
title; (2) declaratory relief; (3) conversion against the
HOA; (4) wrongful foreclosure; (5) violation of NRS 116.1113
against the HOA; and (6) unjust enrichment. (ECF No. 1).
16, 2017, SFR filed a counterclaim against plaintiffs and
Bell for quiet title/declaratory relief and injunctive
relief. (ECF No. 16).
instant motion, the HOA moves to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 14).
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 ...