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.

Newlands Asset Holding Trust v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 17, 2017

NEWLANDS ASSET HOLDING TRUST, Plaintiff,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; and STONEFIELD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendants.

          ORDER

          LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Two motions come before the court. First, defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC moves this court to dismiss plaintiff Newlands Asset Holding Trust's complaint. ECF No. 16. Defendant Stonefield Homeowners' Association (the “HOA”) joined SFR Investments' motion. ECF No. 17. Newlands opposed the motion, and SFR Investments replied. ECF Nos. 20, 21. Second, Newlands moves to substitute nonparty Carisbrook Asset Holding Trust into this action as the plaintiff in the place and stead of Newlands, or Carisbrook moves to intervene in the alternative. ECF No. 19. SFR Investments does not oppose the motion, and no reply was filed. ECF No. 22.

         The court first grants the motion to substitute Carisbrook into the action in the place and stead of Newlands. The court finds that Newlands transferred its interest relevant to this matter to Carisbrook after bringing suit, making substitution of the parties proper. The court then denies the motion to dismiss, finding the applicable statute of limitations does not bar this suit.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In 2009, Damian Webber purchased the property located at 7752 Corso Street, Reno, Nevada 89506. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Webber executed a deed of trust, which identified Bank of America, N.A. as the lender and beneficiary and identified PRLAP, Inc. as the trustee. Id. at 2; id. at Ex. 2. After multiple assignments, Newlands came to hold the beneficial interests under the deed of trust. Id. at 3; id. at Exs. 3-7.

         After recording a notice of delinquent assessment lien, a notice of default and election to sell, and a notice of homeowners' association sale, the HOA held a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on July 24, 2012. Id. at 3-4; see Id. at Exs. 8-11. The HOA then recorded a quitclaim deed in 2014, giving rise to SFR Investments' interest in the property. Id. at 4; id. at Ex. 12.

         Newlands sued the HOA and SFR Investments on June 13, 2017, essentially seeking an order to quiet title over the property.[1] Id. After initiating this suit, Newlands assigned its interest under the deed of trust to Carisbrook Asset Holding Trust. ECF No. 16, Ex. A.

         Two motions now come before the court. First, SFR Investments moves to dismiss the complaint, and the HOA joins in the motion. ECF Nos. 16, 17. Second, Newlands moves to substitute Carisbrook Asset Holding Trust into this action in the place and stead of Newlands. ECF No. 19. SFR does not oppose the motion. ECF No. 22. The HOA did not respond, and no reply was filed.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) allows for the substitution of a party in an action if an interest has been transferred to another. Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(c). The rule also permits an action to proceed “by or against the original party.” Id. A motion brought under Rule 25 is decided under the court's discretion. Sun-Maid Raisin Grow. of Cal. V. Cal. Pack. Corp., 273 F.2d, 282, 284 (9th Cir. 1959); McComb v. Row River Lumber Co., 177 F.2d 129, 130 (9th Cir. 1949).

         B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A court may dismiss a complaint that fails to meet this standard under Rule 12(b)(6). Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal on the basis of either (1) the “lack of a cognizable legal theory, ” or (2) “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

         In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the court accepts as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). However, a court need not “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit” or “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). While a complaint need not allege detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. ...


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.