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)

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-