United States District Court, D. Nevada
EUGENE HARRIS III; CONNIE L. HARRIS, Plaintiffs,
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, dba WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION; DOES I-C, INCLUSIVE, Defendants.
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
this Court comes Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(“Wells Fargo”)'s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.
7). For the reasons stated below, this motion is granted and
the case is dismissed without prejudice.
10, 2017, Plaintiffs Eugene Harris III (“Mr.
Harris”) and Connie L. Harris (“Mrs.
Harris”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed
their Complaint in state court, alleging the following causes
of action: (1) injunctive relief; (2) breach of contract; and
(3) negligence. (ECF No. 1-1). Wells Fargo filed a Petition
for Removal before this Court on August 14, 2017. (ECF No.
1). Wells Fargo contends that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and
1334. Based upon the Petition for Removal, no Defendant is a
citizen of Nevada, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,
September 5, 2017, Wells Fargo filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss. (ECF No. 7) and a related Request for Judicial
Notice (ECF No. 8). On March 1, 2018, Defendant Quality Loan
Service Corporation (“QLS”) filed a Joinder to
the Motion. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiffs filed their Response on
October 13, 2017. (ECF No. 14). On November 3, 2017, Wells
Fargo filed its Reply. (ECF No. 16). The Court held a hearing
on the matter on July 17, 2018, and took the matter under
submission. This Order now follows.
Motion to Dismiss
order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a
pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In ruling on a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, “[a]ll
well-pleaded allegations of material fact in the complaint
are accepted as true and are construed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party.” Faulkner v. ADT
Security Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir.
2013). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,
” meaning that the court can reasonably infer
“that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Rule of Evidence 201(b) states in relevant part that courts
may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that cannot be
reasonably disputed because they “can be accurately and
readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned.” These facts include
“documents on file in federal or state courts.”
Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th
Cir. 2012). Further, courts are required to take judicial
notice of adjudicative facts if a party so requests and
supplies the court with the necessary information.
Fed.R.Evid. 201(c). However, the Court may nonetheless
decline to take judicial notice of documents that are not
relevant to the issues before it. Santa Monica Food Not
Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1025 n.2
(9th Cir. 2006).
Court takes judicial notice of the documents filed in the
underlying bankruptcy proceeding and makes the following
findings of fact. Plaintiffs are residents of Clark County,
Nevada. Defendants Wells Fargo, QLS, and National Default
Servicing Company (“NDS”) are servicers of the
loans attached to the real property at issue in this case.