United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDERGRANTINGMOTIONSTO DISMISS (ECF NOS. 17,
P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
one of many lawsuits arising out of non-judicial foreclosure
sales by homeowners associations (HOAs). Plaintiff Bank of
America asserts a claim for “quiet title/declaratory
judgment” against defendants Country Garden Owners
Association (the HOA) and SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (the
current property owner) on the basis that the HOA foreclosure
sale did not extinguish its deed of trust. ECF No. 1 at 7-12.
Bank of America also asserts damages claims against Country
Garden for breach of Nevada Revised Statutes § 116.1113
and wrongful foreclosure.
defendants move to dismiss Bank of America's claims as
time-barred. I agree, so I grant the motions to dismiss.
considering a motion to dismiss, “all well-pleaded
allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed
in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.”
Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc.,
135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). However, I do not
necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely
because they are cast in the form of factual allegations in
the complaint. See Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network,
18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994). A plaintiff must make
sufficient factual allegations to establish a plausible
entitlement to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). Such allegations must amount to
“more than labels and conclusions, [or] a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Id. at 555.
claim may be dismissed as untimely pursuant to a 12(b)(6)
motion only when the running of the statute of limitations is
apparent on the face of the complaint.” United
States ex rel. Air Control Techs., Inc. v. Pre Con Indus.,
Inc., 720 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir. 2013) (alteration
and quotation omitted). A limitations period begins to run
“from the day the cause of action accrued.”
Clark v. Robison, 944 P.2d 788, 789 (Nev. 1997). A
cause of action generally accrues “when the wrong
occurs and a party sustains injuries for which relief could
be sought.” Petersen v. Bruen, 792 P.2d 18, 20
(Nev. 1990); see also State ex rel. Dep't of Transp.
v. Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys. of Nev., 83 P.3d 815, 817
(Nev. 2004) (en banc) (“A cause of action
‘accrues' when a suit may be maintained
thereon.” (quotation omitted)). Nevada has adopted the
discovery rule, and thus time limits generally “do not
commence and the cause of action does not ‘accrue'
until the aggrieved party knew, or reasonably should have
known, of the facts giving rise to the damage or
injury.” G & H Assocs. v. Ernest W. Hahn,
Inc., 934 P.2d 229, 233 (Nev. 1997).
America's “quiet title/declaratory judgment”
claim arises under Nevada Revised Statutes § 40.010.
Under that section, an “action may be brought by any
person against another who claims an estate or interest in
real property, adverse to the person bringing the action, for
the purpose of determining such adverse claim.” Nev.
Rev. Stat. § 40.010. Thus, any person claiming an
interest in the property may seek to determine adverse
claims, even if that person does not hold title to, or
possession of, the property.
parties dispute, however, which statute of limitations
applies when, as here, the person seeking to determine its
adverse interest in property has a lien but does not have a
claim to title to the property. The parties offer three
possibilities: (1) Nevada Revised Statutes § 11.070,
which provides a five-year period for quiet title claims; (2)
§ 11.190(3)(a), which provides a three-year period for
“[a]n action upon a liability created by
statute;” or (3) § 11.220, which provides a
four-year catchall period for claims that are not covered by
Supreme Court of Nevada has not addressed which statute of
limitations applies in these circumstances. I therefore must
predict how that court would decide the question,
“using intermediate appellate court decisions,
statutes, and decisions from other jurisdictions as
interpretive aids.” Gravquick A/S v. Trimble
Navigation Int'l Ltd., 323 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir.
Nevada rules of statutory interpretation, I look first to the
statute's plain language. Clay v. Eighth Jud. Dist.
Ct., 305 P.3d 898, 902 (Nev. 2013). If the statute's
“language is clear and unambiguous, ” I enforce
it “as written.” Id. (quotation
omitted). I “avoid statutory interpretation that
renders language meaningless or superfluous, ” and
“interpret a rule or statute in harmony with other
rules and statutes.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Revised Statutes § 11.070 provides the limitation period
for quiet title actions.
to that statute,
No cause of action or defense to an action, founded upon the
title to real property, . . . shall be effectual, unless it
appears that the person prosecuting the action or making the
defense, or under whose title the action is prosecuted or the
defense is made, . . . was seized or possessed of the
premises in question within 5 years before the ...