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.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 15, 2018

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Plaintiff(s),
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendant Antelope Homeowners Association's (the “HOA”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 35). Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) (ECF No. 40) and plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”) (ECF No. 44) filed responses, to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 60).

         Also before the court is SFR's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 41). JPMorgan filed a response (ECF No. 45), to which SFR replied (ECF No. 46).

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 7828 Drydust Ct., Las Vegas, Nevada (the “property”). On July 14, 2008, a deed of trust securing a loan made to Horatio and Elizabeth Rocha (the “borrowers”) in the amount of $218, 529.00 was recorded. (ECF No. 1).

         JPMorgan alleges that it is the beneficiary to the deed of trust. (ECF No. 1). JPMorgan further alleges that the HOA, through its agents, has recorded several notices against the property: a notice of delinquent assessment lien; a notice of breach and election to sell, and a notice of sale. (ECF No. 1 at 3). JPMorgan alleges that the HOA did not provide JPMorgan with proper notice of these recordings and that the recordings did not specify the superpriority amount owed. (ECF No. 1 at 3).

         On November 19, 2013, the HOA conducted a foreclosure sale, during which SFR purchased the property for $19, 000.00. (ECF No. 1).

         On February 2, 2017, JPMorgan filed the underlying complaint, alleging three causes of action: (1) declaratory judgment against SFR; (2) quiet title against SFR; and (3) unjust enrichment against SFR. (ECF No. 1).

         On June 12, 2017, SFR filed a counterclaim against JPMorgan for quiet title and injunctive relief and a crossclaim against Horation and Elizabeth Rocha for the same. (ECF No. 16).

         In the instant motion, the HOA moves to dismiss JPMorgan's claims against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 35). In SFR's motion to dismiss, SFR argues that the HOA is a necessary party and moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) if the HOA is dismissed. (ECF No. 41).

         II. Legal Standard

         A court may dismiss a 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). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).

         “Factual allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).

         In Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step approach district courts are to apply when considering motions to dismiss. First, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint; however, legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 678-79. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. at 678.

         Second, the court must consider whether the factual allegations in the complaint allege a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff's complaint alleges facts that allow the court to draw a reasonable ...


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.