United States District Court, D. Nevada
USROF III LEGAL TITLE TRUST 2015-1 BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE, Plaintiff(s),
SATICOY BAY LLC, SERIES 5526 MOONLIGHT GARDEN STREET, Defendant(s).
before the court is plaintiff U.S Bank National
Association's (“U.S. Bank”) motion for leave
to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 24). Defendant Saticoy
Bay LLC Series 5526 Moonlight Garden Street (“Saticoy
Bay”) filed a response (ECF No. 26), to which U.S. Bank
replied (ECF No. 27).
instant action arises out of a dispute over property located
at 5526 Moonlight Garden Street, Las Vegas, Nevada
(“the property”). (ECF No. 1).
Bank holds a deed of trust that encumbered the property. (ECF
No. 1). On October 5, 2012, Timber Creek Homeowners'
Association (“the HOA”), through Nevada
Association Services, Inc. (“the HOA trustee”),
sold the property pursuant to NRS 116.3116. (ECF No. 1, Ex.
7). On September 30, 2013, the property was conveyed to
Saticoy Bay for no consideration pursuant to a grant bargain
sale deed. (ECF No. 1).
15, 2016, U.S. Bank filed a complaint alleging three causes
of action against Saticoy Bay: (1) quiet title/declaratory
relief; (2) a preliminary injunction; and (3) unjust
enrichment. (ECF No. 1). On June 29, 2016, Saticoy Bay filed
a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 6). On January 19, 2017, the
court granted in part Saticoy Bay's motion and dismissed
U.S. Bank's preliminary injunction and unjust enrichment
claims. (ECF No. 15). The court denied Saticoy Bay's
motion to dismiss as to U.S. Bank's quiet
title/declaratory relief claim. Id. U.S. Bank's
instant motion requests leave to file an amended complaint.
(ECF No. 24).
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[t]he
court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The United States
Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the
liberal standard district courts must apply when granting
such leave. In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962), the Supreme Court explained:
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as
undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the
amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules
require, be “freely given.”
Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party's written consent
or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Local
Rule 15-1(a) states that “the moving party shall attach
the proposed amended pleading to any motion seeking leave of
the court to file an amended pleading.” LR 15-1(a).
instant motion, U.S. Bank asserts that leave to file an
amended complaint should be granted so that U.S. Bank can add
the HOA and the HOA trustee as parties, and add causes of
action for wrongful foreclosure, negligence, negligence per
se, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, misrepresentation,
and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
(ECF No. 24).
Bank argues that its request to amend is timely, as it was in
the process of completing NRED mediation before bringing
claims against the HOA and the HOA trustee, as required by
Nevada Law. (ECF No. 24). Further, U.S. Bank argues that it
is seeking leave to amend so as to adjudicate all claims,
against all necessary parties, in one action. Id.
Bay responds that it is not opposed to the court permitting
U.S. Bank to add the HOA and the HOA trustee as parties. (ECF
No. 26). Nor is Saticoy Bay opposed to U.S. Bank's
request to add causes of action against the HOA and the HOA
trustee. Id. However, Saticoy Bay opposes U.S.
Bank's attempt to reassert claims ...