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.

US Bank National Association v. BDJ Intestments, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 8, 2019

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset Back Certificates Series 2005-A8, Plaintiff,
v.
BDJ INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge.

         Pending before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 82, 85), filed by Defendant Lone Mountain Quartette Community Association (“HOA”) and BDJ Investments, LLC (“BDJ”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association (“Plaintiff”) filed Responses, (ECF Nos. 83, 86), and Defendants filed Replies, (ECF Nos. 84, 91), in support of their respective Motions.

         For the reasons discussed herein, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises from the non-judicial foreclosure on real property located at 10625 Colter Bay Court, Las Vegas, Nevada 89129 (the “Property”). (See Am. Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 81). In July 2005, Isam Halteh (“Borrower”) purchased the Property by way of a loan in the amount of $255, 400.00 secured by a deed of trust, identifying Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) as beneficiary. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8). Plaintiff later obtained an interest in the Property and is the current holder of the deed of trust. (Id. ¶ 9).

         In 2011, upon Borrower's failure to pay all amounts due, HOA initiated foreclosure proceedings, recording a notice of delinquent assessment lien, followed by a notice of default and election to sell. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 12). HOA recorded a notice of trustee's sale and conducted a public auction on April 17, 2012. (Id. ¶ 14). BDJ purchased the Property for $6, 000 on April 18, 2012. (Id.).

         Plaintiff filed its initial complaint on April 15, 2016, asserting causes of action for declaratory relief, quiet title, and breach of NRS 112.190. (Compl. ¶¶ 30-72, ECF No. 1). The Court subsequently granted HOA's motion to dismiss, dismissing the declaratory relief and quiet title claims without prejudice, and dismissing the NRS 112.190 with prejudice. (See Order 12:14-19, ECF No. 80).

         Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint on October 15, 2018, bringing the following causes of action arising from the foreclosure and subsequent sale of the Property: (1) quiet title through the remedy of declaratory relief; (2) injunctive relief; and (3) unjust enrichment. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 51-82). Shortly thereafter, HOA and BDJ filed the instant Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 82, 85).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) where a pleader fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A pleading must give fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests, and although a court must take all factual allegations as true, legal conclusions couched as a factual allegations are insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Accordingly, Rule 12(b)(6) requires “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. “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.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “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. This standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.

         “Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). “However, material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may be considered.” Id. Similarly, “documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss” without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994). On a motion to dismiss, a court may also take judicial notice of “matters of public record.” Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). Otherwise, if a court considers materials outside of the pleadings, the motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d).

         If the court grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to Rule 15(a), the court should “freely” give leave to amend “when justice so requires, ” and in the absence of a 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.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

         III. DISCUSSION

         HOA moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff's quiet title claim is premised upon the same the equitable and constitutional arguments the Court has already rejected; (2) the injunctive relief claim is improperly pled as a stand-alone claim for relief; and (3) the unjust enrichment claim is barred by the statute of limitations and is otherwise not a cognizable cause of action. (HOA's MTD 5:1-15:13, ECF No. 82). BDJ also seeks dismissal by raising a statute-of-limitations ...


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.