United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
dispute arises from a homeowners' association foreclosure
sale. Before the Court is Defendant Spanish Trail Master
Association's (the “HOA”) motion to dismiss
the claims Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. asserted against
the HOA in its amended complaint
(“Motion”). (ECF No. 68.) As further explained
below, the Court will grant in part, and deny in part, the
HOA's Motion-dismissing all but Plaintiff's quiet
title claim against the HOA.
following facts are taken from the operative complaint. (ECF
No. 65.) In December 2006, R. Glen Woods, and his successors,
as Trustee of the Watson 2005 Trust under agreement dated
March 15, 2005, and Jeannie Watson, an unmarried woman
(collectively, “Borrowers”) obtained a loan
(“Loan”) in the amount of $380, 000.00 evidenced
by a note and secured by a deed of trust (“DOT”)
on real property located at 7617 Boca Raton Drive, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89113, APN 163-27-114-036 (“the
Property”). (Id. at 2, 3.) Plaintiff owns the
Loan and DOT as the successor-in-interest to the original
lender. (Id. at 3-4.) Borrowers failed to pay
homeowners' association dues.
on June 12, 2013, the HOA, acting through its agent,
Defendant Nevada Association Services, Inc.
(“NAS”), recorded a notice of delinquent
assessment lien regarding the outstanding homeowners'
association dues. (Id. at 4.) On June 21, 2013, the
HOA, again acting through its agent NAS, recorded a notice of
default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent
assessment lien. (Id.) The HOA then recorded a
notice of foreclosure sale, which listed the amount due to
the HOA as $34, 763.53. (Id.) Defendant Vegas
Property Services, Inc. (“VPS”) purchased the
property at the foreclosure sale (the “HOA
Sale””) for $55, 000 on July 25, 2014.
asserts five claims against the HOA: (1) declaratory relief
under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution; (2) declaratory relief under the due process
clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution; (3) wrongful foreclosure; (4) breach of NRS
§ 116.1113, et seq.; and (5) quiet title.
(Id. at 6-11.) Not directly relevant here, Plaintiff
also asserts an unjust enrichment claim against VPS.
(Id. at 11.)
may dismiss a plaintiff's complaint for “failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A properly pleaded complaint must
provide “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not
require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than
“labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Factual
allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step
approach district courts are to apply when considering
motions to dismiss. First, a district court must accept as
true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint;
however, legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption
of truth. See id. at 678. Mere recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory
statements, do not suffice. See id. at 678. Second,
a district court must consider whether the factual
allegations in the complaint allege a plausible claim for
relief. See Id. at 679. A claim is facially
plausible when the plaintiff's complaint alleges facts
that allow a court to draw a reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. See
Id. at 678. Where the complaint does not permit the
court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,
the complaint has “alleged-but it has not show[n]-that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 679
(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
That is insufficient. When the claims in a complaint have not
crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint
must be dismissed. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
has moved to dismiss all five of the claims Plaintiff asserts
against it. (ECF No. 68.) The Court is persuaded by some of
the HOA's arguments, but not others. The Court structures
its discussion below to map to Plaintiff's claims
asserted against the HOA. However, the Court first addresses
below the HOA's unpersuasive statute of limitations
Statute of Limitations
moves to dismiss Plaintiff's third and fourth causes of
action-wrongful foreclosure and violation of NRS 116.1113,
et seq.-as time barred under the applicable statute
of limitations. (ECF No. 68 at 6-8.) Plaintiff counters in
relevant part that these claims are not time-barred because
they relate back to the filing of Plaintiff's ...