U.S. Bank N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 49

ORDER that 16 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that 17 Motion for More Definite Statement is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that 23 Motion to Certify a Question of Law is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/13/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 U.S. BANK N.A., Case No. 2:16-CV-2801 JCM (GWF) 8 Plaintiff(s), 9 10 ORDER v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is Sherman Oaks Estates Owners Association’s (the “HOA”) 14 motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 16). Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) filed a 15 response (ECF No. 27), as did plaintiff U.S. Bank N.A. (the “Bank”) (ECF No. 30).1 Thereafter, 16 the HOA filed a reply. (ECF No. 31). 17 18 Also before the court is the HOA’s motion for a more definite statement. (ECF No. 17). The Bank filed a response (ECF No. 29), and the HOA filed a reply (ECF No. 32). 19 Also before the court is SFR’s motion to certify a question of law. (ECF No. 23). The 20 HOA filed a joinder to this motion. (ECF No. 28). The Bank submitted a response (ECF No. 34), 21 and SFR filed a reply (ECF No. 35). 22 This action involves the nonjudicial foreclosure sale on the real property located at 4779 23 Laurel Canyon St., Las Vegas, NV 89129. (ECF No. 1). The Bank asserts a claim for quiet title 24 and declaratory relief as to the HOA and SFR. (Id.). 25 To have standing to bring a claim, a complaint must satisfy three criteria: 26 27 1 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge The Bank appears as the successor trustee to Bank of America, N.A., successor in interest to LaSalle Bank N.A., as trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, WMALT Series 2005-10. (ECF No. 1). 1 3 (1) a party must have suffered an “injury in fact,” which is an actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected, concrete, and particularized interest, (2) “there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” and (3) it must be likely that the injury will be redressable by a favorable decision.” 4 United States v. Kovall, 857 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 5 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)). 2 6 In its complaint, the Bank asserts that it “holds the Note and Deed of Trust” and that “as 7 the current beneficiary under the Deed of Trust, [the Bank]’s interest in the Property retained its 8 first-position status in the chain of title after the Sale because the Sale was improper or unlawful.” 9 (ECF No. 1 at 3, 6). 10 At no point in the complaint does the Bank allege that it held the contested interest prior to 11 the foreclosure sale. Therefore, this court cannot assess whether plaintiff has standing to bring its 12 claim. See Ditech Financial LLC, v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 4683 Califa, No. 2:17-cv-757-JCM- 13 NJK, 2017 WL 2871068, at *2 (D. Nev. July 3, 2017); see also Kovall, 857 F.3d at 1065. Indeed, 14 this omission also prevents the court from determining whether plaintiff has a superior claim to 15 title. See Ditech Financial LLC, 2017 WL 2871068, at *2; see also Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.010. 16 Thus, the HOA’s motion to dismiss will be granted. 17 Accordingly, 18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the HOA’s motion to 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 dismiss (ECF No. 16) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the HOA’s motion for a more definite statement (ECF No. 17) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SFR’s motion to certify a question of law (ECF No. 23) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot. DATED July 13, 2017. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?