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.

USROF III Legal Title Trust 2015-1 By U.S. Bank N. A. v. Saticoy Bay LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 22, 2018

USROF III LEGAL TITLE TRUST 2015-1 BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE, Plaintiff(s),
v.
SATICOY BAY LLC, SERIES 5526 MOONLIGHT GARDEN STREET, Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently 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).

         I. Facts

         The instant action arises out of a dispute over property located at 5526 Moonlight Garden Street, Las Vegas, Nevada (“the property”). (ECF No. 1).

         U.S. 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).

         On June 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).

         II. Legal Standard

         Federal 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.”

Id.

         Further, 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).

         III. Discussion

         In the 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).

         U.S. 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.

         Saticoy 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 ...


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.