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.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 16, 2018

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., Plaintiffs,
v.
MAHOGANY MEADOWS AVENUE TRUST, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendant Mahogany Meadows Avenue Trust's (“Mahogany”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) filed a response (ECF No. 17), and Mahogany replied (ECF No. 19).

         Also before the court is defendant Copper Creak Homeowners Association's (the “HOA”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 13).

         I. Introduction

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 6896 Mahogany Meadows Avenue, North Las Vegas, NV 89122 (the “property”).

         On June 13, 2008, Luis A. Carrasco and Janet Kongnalinh (the “borrowers”) obtained title to the property through grant, bargain, sale deed, which was recorded on July 1, 2008. (ECF No. 1). The borrowers executed a promissory note and a deed of trust in favor of the lender, Wells Fargo. Id. The deed of trust was recorded on July 1, 2008. Id. The loan obtained by the borrowers was a federally issued loan, insured through the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”). Id.

         On April 18, 2011, a notice of delinquent assessment lien was recorded by the HOA. (ECF No. 1). On May 23, 2011, a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy delinquent assessment lien was recorded. Id. On December 21, 2012, a notice of trustee's sale was recorded. Id. On February 14, 2013, a trustee's deed upon sale was recorded. Id. The trustee's deed stated Mahogany purchased the property for $5, 332.00 at the HOA foreclosure sale on February 5, 2013. Id.

         Wells Fargo's complaint alleges the following claims: (1) quiet title/declaratory relief under the takings clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution against all defendants; (2) quiet title/declaratory relief under the supremacy clause of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against all defendants; (3) quiet title/declaratory relief under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution against all defendants; (4) wrongful foreclosure against all defendants; (5) violations of NRS 116.1113 against all defendants; (6) quiet title against all defendants; and (7) unjust enrichment against Mahogany. (ECF No. 1).

         Mahogany's motion seeks to dismiss Wells Fargo's claims because it argues the foreclosure sale was properly conducted, the bank is not entitled to equitable relief, Mahogany is a bona fide purchaser, there is no requirement that the foreclosure notice specify the superpriority lien amount, there is no commercially reasonable requirement, FHA is not a party, and because the deed of trust was extinguished. (ECF No. 9).

         The HOA's motion seeks to dismiss Wells Fargo's wrongful foreclosure and violation of NRS 116.1113 claims as time-barred or in the alternative, for failure to comply with NRS 38.310's mediation requirement. (ECF No. 13).

         II. Legal Standard

         The 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.

         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.” 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.

         In 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.

         The Ninth Circuit addressed post-Iqbal pleading standards in Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 ...


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.