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. Royal Highlands Street

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 2, 2017

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Plaintiff(s),
v.
ROYAL HIGHLANDS STREET AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, et al., Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendant Royal Highlands Street and Landscape Maintenance Corporation's (“RHS”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”) filed a response (ECF No. 12), and RHS filed a reply and errata (ECF Nos. 14, 15).

         I. Introduction

         At issue in this case are the disputed property interests in the wake of a February 13, 2013, nonjudicial HOA foreclosure sale of the real property at 11080 Kilkerran Court, Las Vegas, Nevada 89141. (ECF No. 1). Notably, BNYM initiated this case on August 22, 2016. (Id.).

         BNYM asserts four claims: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; (2) breach of Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) § 116.1113 against RHS and Alessi & Koenig, LLC (“Alessi”); (3) wrongful foreclosure against RHS and Alessi; and (4) injunctive relief against SFR. (Id.).

         II. Legal Standard

         The court may dismiss a plaintiff's 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). Although rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it does require more than labels and conclusions. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Furthermore, a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (citation omitted). Rule 8 does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Id. at 678-79.

         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.” Id. 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. When a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, and shows only a mere possibility of entitlement, the complaint does not meet the requirements to show plausibility of entitlement to relief. Id.

         In Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step approach district courts are to apply when considering a motion to dismiss. Id. First, the court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint. However, this requirement is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Id. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. 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. at 679. When the allegations in a complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, plaintiff's claim must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

         The Ninth Circuit addressed post-Iqbal pleading standards in Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). The Starr court held:

First, to be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint or counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively. Second, the factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation.

Id.

         III. Discussion

         A. Statute of limitations

         Over three years have elapsed between the contested foreclosure sale and the initiation of this action. (ECF No. 1). Thus, plaintiff's claims under NRS 116.1113 and wrongful foreclosure are time barred and will be dismissed with prejudice. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bar Arbor Glen at Providence Homeowners Ass'n, No. 2:16-cv-253-JCM-GWF, 2017 WL 1550226, at *4 (D. Nev. ...


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.