United States District Court, D. Nevada
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR MS 2005-9AR, Plaintiffs,
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., Defendants.
before the court is defendant Teton Ranch (Highlands
Maintenance Corporation) Homeowners Association's (the
“HOA”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10). Both
plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for
MS 2005-9AR (“plaintiff”) and co-defendant SFR
Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) have responded.
(ECF Nos. 18, 21).
limited response concurred with the HOA's motion to
dismiss and argues “that any dismissal on that basis
should result in a global dismissal of all claims made by
[p]laintiff as against all [d]efendants, along with an
[o]rder declaring that SFR is the rightful owner of title to
the Property.” (ECF No. 21 at 2). SFR argues that,
should the court not dismiss the complaint as to all
defendants, dismissing the HOA would be inappropriate.
replied to plaintiff's response, but has not replied to
SFR. (ECF No. 23).
case involves a dispute over real property located at 509
Copper View St., Henderson, Nevada 89052 (the
“property”). Anthony Depasquale acquired a $460,
000 loan, which was secured by a deed of trust on the
property that was recorded on August 17, 2005. (ECF No. 5 at
3). Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
(“MERS”) was the beneficiary solely as nominee
for the lender, and it assigned its interest as the
beneficiary to plaintiff on July 27, 2010. (Id.).
recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien on February
3, 2009. (Id. at 4). On July 10, 2009, the HOA
recorded a notice of default and election to sell.
(Id.). Finally, on March 11, 2014, the HOA recorded
a notice of foreclosure sale, which took place on April 3,
2014. (Id.). SFR purchased the property for $24, 000
at the foreclosure sale, and the foreclosure deed was
recorded by the HOA on April 21, 2014. (Id.).
brings suit alleging three claims: (1) declaratory relief
against SFR; (2) quiet title against all defendants; and (3)
unjust enrichment against SFR. (Id.). The HOA argues
that the complaint must be dismissed for failure to mediate;
the quiet title claim fails because plaintiff never had title
to the property; and the doctrine of laches warrants
dismissal. (ECF No. 10).
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.
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.
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.
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