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.

Federal Housing Finance Agency v. LN Management, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 30, 2019

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, in its capacity as Conservator of Federal National Mortgage Association; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; and, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A, Plaintiffs,
v.
LN MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court is Defendant LN Management, LLC's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 20.

         In their Complaint filed March 1, 2018, Plaintiffs Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator of the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FHFA”), Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”) seek a declaratory judgment and to quiet title to property located at 7311 Falvo Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiffs allege that a non-judicial foreclosure sale occurred on March 1, 2013 and that a foreclosure deed was recorded on March 6, 2013.

         For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

         II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on March 1, 2018. ECF No. 1. On July 11, 2018, Defendant filed both an Answer and a Motion to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 19, 20. On August 31, 2018, the Court stayed discovery pursuant to the parties' stipulation. ECF No. 27.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         In 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 internal quotation marks omitted).

         IV. DISCUSSION

         Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' equitable claims for declaratory relief are time barred. Plaintiffs respond that a six-year statute of limitations applies, thereby allowing their claims to proceed.

         Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the Court determines whether “the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the complaint.” Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 997 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). A complaint may be dismissed as untimely only where “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.” Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1995).

         For statute of limitations calculations, time is computed from the day the cause of action accrued. Clark v. Robison, 944 P.2d 788, 789 (Nev. 1997). Plaintiffs allege that the HOA foreclosed on its lien on March 1, 2013 and recorded a foreclosure deed on March 6, 2013. The complaint was filed on March 1, 2018, five years later.

         If state law supplied the applicable statute of limitations in this case, the statute of limitations for Plaintiffs' equitable claims would be four years. See NRS 11.220. Contrary to Defendant's argument, Plaintiffs' claims would be governed by the three-year statute of limitations under NRS 11.190(3)(a) only to the extent based upon a liability created by statute, but not to the extent Plaintiffs seek relief on equitable grounds. Plaintiffs are not entitled to the five-year statute of limitations for certain quiet title actions pursuant to NRS 11.070 and 11.080 because the statute of limitations provided by these code sections only apply when the plaintiff actually “was seized or possessed of the premises.” Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 11.070, 11.080; see also Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2021 Gray Eagle Way v. JPMorgan Chase ...


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.