United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (DEFS.' MOTIONS TO DISMISS ― ECF NO.
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendants Household Finance Realty Corporation
of Nevada, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC Home Equity Loan
Corporation I, and Mortgage Electronic Registration System,
AKA “MERS”' (collectively
“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint (“Motion”). (ECF No. 22.) The
Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' response (ECF No. 33) and
Defendants' reply (ECF No. 34.) For the reasons set forth
below, Defendants‘ Motion is granted and the case is
dismissed with prejudice.
Raymond Smith and Lessie Riggs-Smith filed an Amended
Complaint asserting ten claims all based on the 2015
foreclosure of real property located at 1331 Ebbetts Pass in
Las Vegas. (ECF No. 13 ¶ 3.) The claims include wrongful
foreclosure, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, slander of title, quiet title, and violations of
federal statutes. (Id. ¶¶ 56-152.)
Plaintiffs do not mention it in their Amended Complaint (nor
in their response to Defendants' Motion), Plaintiff
Raymond Smith (“Smith”) filed a very similar
complaint, concerning the same property, in the Eighth
Judicial District Court in Clark County on May 15, 2015.
(“Original Complaint”, ECF No.
22-1.) The Original Complaint also alleged fraud
and intentional infliction of emotion distress, as well as
several other claims and requests for injunctive relief
amounting to quiet title. (Id.) That case was
removed to federal district court where, after the parties
fully briefed a motion to dismiss, Judge Dawson dismissed all
of Smith's claims, denied leave to amend, and directed
the Clerk to enter judgment against Smith. See Smith v.
Accredited Home Lenders, et al., 2:15-cv-01130-KJD-VCF
(D. Nev. Mar. 15, 2016) (order granting defendants'
motion to dismiss). Plaintiffs did not move for
reconsideration or appeal Judge Dawson's order.
now move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint based
on the principle of res judicata.
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); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007).
a court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in
ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. United
States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907-08 (9th Cir. 2003).
When considering a motion to dismiss, however, “a court
may take judicial notice of ‘matters of public
record.'” Lee v. Los Angeles, 250 F.3d
668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Mack v. S. Bay Beer
Distribs., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986)). The
Court may also consider proceedings in other courts that
“have a direct relation to matters at issue.”
U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v.
Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, the Court may consider “matters of the
public record” in issuing this motion to dismiss
without converting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary
judgment. Lee, 250 F.3d at 688-89; see,
e.g., Heisen v. Pac. Coast Bldg. Products,
Inc., 26 F.3d 130 (9th Cir. 1994).
of the fact that the Supreme Court has “instructed the
federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful
pleading' of pro se litigants, ” Eldridge v.
Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987), the Court
will view Plaintiffs' pleadings with the appropriate
degree of leniency. However, “pro se litigants
in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more
favorably than parties with attorneys of record.”
Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.
1986). Moreover, pro se litigants are bound by the
same rules of procedure as other litigants. See Ghazali
v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).
argue that each of Plaintiffs' claims were either
actually brought or could have been brought in
Plaintiffs' Original Complaint, and are therefore barred
by the doctrine of res judicata. (ECF No. 22 at 5-6.)
Plaintiffs' response does not address this argument. (ECF
preclusion is a broad doctrine that bars bringing claims that
were previously litigated as well as some claims that were
never before adjudicated.” Clements v. Airport
Auth. of Washoe County, 69 F.3d 321, 327 (9th Cir.1995).
“Res judicata [claim preclusion] bars all grounds for
recovery which could have been asserted, whether they were or
not, in a prior suit between the same parties in the same
cause of action.” Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co.,
Inc., 966 F.2d 1318, 1319 (9th Cir. 1992). Under
“the Full Faith and Credit Act, federal courts must
give state judicial proceedings ‘the same full faith
and credit ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of
[the] State ... from which they are taken.'”
Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 322 (9th