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.

U.S. Bank, National Association v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 13, 2017

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff(s),
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently 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.[1] Defendant/counterclaimant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) filed a limited response (ECF No. 20), to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 23).

         I. Facts

         This 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).

         After 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).

         On 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).

         On 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. 1).

         On May 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).

         On June 16, 2017, SFR filed a counterclaim against plaintiffs and Bell for quiet title/declaratory relief and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 16).

         In the instant motion, the HOA moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 14).

         II. 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 ...


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.