United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. Navarro, Chief Judge.
before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 14),
filed by Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC
(“SFR”). Plaintiffs Federal Housing Finance
Agency (“FHFA”) and Federal National Mortgage
Association (“Fannie Mae”) (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 15), and
SFR filed a Reply, (ECF No. 17).
pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment,
(ECF No. 16), filed by Plaintiffs. SFR filed a Response, (ECF
No. 18), and Plaintiffs filed a Reply, (ECF No. 20). Also
pending before the Court is SFR's Motion for Rule 56(d)
Relief, (ECF No. 19), to which Plaintiffs filed a Response,
(ECF No. 21), and SFR filed a Reply, (ECF No. 22).
reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES
SFR's Motion to Dismiss, GRANTS
SFR's Motion for Rule 56(d) Relief,  and
DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment.
case arises from the non-judicial foreclosure on real
property located at 4716 Rancho Camino Court, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89129 (the “Property”). (See
Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1). In 2003, non-party Keith McCloud
(“Borrower”) purchased the Property by way of
loan from Wausau Mortgage Corporation (“Wausau”).
(Id. ¶¶ 16-17). The loan is secured by a
deed of trust, recorded on July 28, 2003, identifying Wausau
as lender and beneficiary. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19).
Plaintiff Fannie Mae acquired ownership of the deed of trust
and promissory note in September 2003. (Id. ¶
2006, Wausau assigned the deed of trust to Suntrust Mortgage
Inc. (“Suntrust”) who, in turn, assigned the deed
of trust to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
(“MERS”). (Id. ¶¶ 21-22).
Beginning in September 2007, CitiMortgage, Inc.
(“CMI”) began servicing the loan on Fannie
Mae's behalf. (Id. ¶ 23).
Borrower's failure to stay current on his loan payments,
Absolute Collections Services, LLC (“ACS”), on
behalf of Spanish Springs HOA (“HOA”), initiated
foreclosure proceedings on the Property. (Id.
¶¶ 35-36). ACS recorded a notice of foreclosure
sale on February 12, 2014, stating the Property would be sold
on April 15, 2014. (Id. ¶ 37). Defendant SFR
purchased the Property at the sale and recorded a foreclosure
deed evidencing the purchase on April 15, 2014. (Id.
time of HOA's foreclosure sale, Fannie Mae owned the
loan, CMI serviced the loan, and MERS was record beneficiary
under the deed of trust as nominee for Fannie Mae.
(Id. ¶ 24). Plaintiffs allege that at no time
did FHFA consent to the foreclosure sale extinguishing Fannie
Mae's interest in the Property. (Id. ¶ 39).
filed the instant action on August 22, 2018, bringing claims
against SFR for declaratory relief and quiet title under 12
U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3). (See Id. ¶¶
40-62). Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Federal
Foreclosure Bar, 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3), preempts Nevada
law to the extent it would permit the foreclosure sale to
extinguish Fannie Mae's deed of trust. (Id.
10:20-26). Shortly after Plaintiffs commenced this action,
SFR filed its Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) mandates that a court
dismiss a cause of action that fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. See N. Star Int'l v.
Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir.
1983). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint
does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally
cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests. See
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In
determining whether the complaint is sufficient to state a
claim, the Court will take all material allegations as true
and construe them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.
See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898
(9th Cir. 1986).
Court, however, is not required to accept as true allegations
that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact,
or unreasonable inferences. See Sprewell v. Golden State
Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). A formulaic
recitation of a cause of action with conclusory allegations
is not sufficient; a plaintiff must plead facts showing that
a violation is ...