Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 36

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 11 HOA's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 25 SFR's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR
RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION
TRUST 2006-A3CB MORTGAGE
PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2006-C,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC;
)
ALIANTE MASTER ASSOCIATION;
)
NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., )
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:17-cv-02638-GMN-GWF
ORDER

13

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 11), filed by Defendant
14

Aliante Master Association (“HOA”). Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
15

(“Plaintiff”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 18), and HOA filed a Reply, (ECF No. 21).
16

Also pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 25), filed by
17

Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LL (“SFR”). Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 29), and
18

SFR filed a Reply, (ECF No. 30). For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES both
19

Motions.
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on October 11, 2017, asserting claims involving the non22

judicial foreclosure on real property located at 6853 Jungle Fowl Street, North Las Vegas,
23

Nevada, 89084 (the “Property”). (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1). On December 22, 2005, non-party
24

Norman R. Flemens purchased the Property by way of a loan in the amount of $280,450.00.
25

(Id. ¶¶ 12, 13).
Page 1 of 4

1

On January 14, 2009, HOA, through its agent Nevada Association Services, Inc.

2

(“NAS”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien. (Id. ¶ 14). On November 20, 2009,

3

HOA recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien.

4

(Id. ¶ 15). On July 23, 2010, HOA recorded a notice of trustee’s sale. (Id. ¶ 16). On March 8,

5

2013, SFR purchased the Property at the foreclosure sale pursuant to NRS § 116.1113. (Id. ¶

6

18).

7

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against various parties involved in the

8

foreclosure and subsequent sales of the Property: (1) quiet title with a requested remedy of

9

declaratory judgment; (2) declaratory relief under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth

10

Amendment; (3) quiet title under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment; (4)

11

injunctive relief; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) negligence; (7) negligence per se; (8) breach of

12

contract; (9) misrepresentation; (10) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (11)

13

wrongful and defective foreclosure; and (12) unjust enrichment. (Id.).

14

II.

15

LEGAL STANDARD
Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) where a pleader fails to state a claim upon

16

which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

17

555 (2007). A pleading must give fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on

18

which it rests, and although a court must take all factual allegations as true, legal conclusions

19

couched as factual allegations are insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Accordingly, Rule

20

12(b)(6) requires “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements

21

of a cause of action will not do.” Id. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain

22

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

23

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A

24

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to

25

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.
Page 2 of 4

1

If the Court grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, leave to amend should

2

be granted unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by

3

amendment. DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant

4

to Rule 15(a), the court should “freely” give leave to amend “when justice so requires,” and in

5

the absence of a reason such as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the

6

movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue

7

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the

8

amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

9
10

II.

DISCUSSION
Both HOA and SFR (collectively “Defendants”) argue that Plaintiff’s claims should be

11

dismissed because they are time-barred. (See, e.g., HOA’s Mot. to Dismiss (“MTD”) 2:3, ECF

12

No. 11). Specifically, HOA argues that Plaintiff’s claims accrued on March 16, 2013, and

13

Plaintiff did not file its claims until October 11, 2017. (Id. 4:17–19). HOA asserts that

14

“[b]ecause [Plaintiff’s] claims were filed beyond the limitations set forth in NRS 11.190 and

15

Nevada law, the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.” (Id. 4:19–21). SFR agrees

16

with HOA’s assertions and similarly argues that Plaintiff “is not entitled to any longer statute of

17

limitation than three years” pursuant to NRS § 11.190. (SFR’s MTD 6:19, ECF No. 25).

18

However, this Court has previously applied the five-year limitations period under NRS

19

§ 11.070 for quiet title claims arising from HOA foreclosure sales. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co.

20

for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Tr. 2006-HE8 Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates, Series

21

2006-HE8 v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-00259-GMN-NJK, 2018 WL 615669,

22

at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2018); Weeping Hollow Ave. Trust v. Spencer, 831 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th

23

Cir. 2016) (“Under Nevada law, Spencer could have brought claims challenging the HOA

24

foreclosure sale within five years of the sale.”); Scott v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.,

25

605 Fed. Appx. 598, 600 (9th Cir. 2015) (“The statute of limitations for quiet title claims in

Page 3 of 4

1

Nevada is five years.”); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Antelope Homeowners’ Ass’n, No. 2:16–cv–

2

00449–JCM–PAL, 2017 WL 421652, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 30, 2017); Nationstar Mortg. LLC v.

3

Amber Hills II Homeowners Ass’n, No. 2:15–cv–01433–APG–CWH, 2016 WL 1298108, at *3

4

(D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2016). Because Plaintiff’s claims center on seeking quiet title from an HOA

5

foreclosure sale, the Court deems NRS § 11.070 the appropriate limitations statute for the case

6

at hand.

7

Indeed, the foreclosure sale occurred on March 16, 2013, and Plaintiff filed suit on

8

October 11, 2007. (HOA’s MTD 4:17–19). Pursuant to NRS § 11.070, the Court applies the

9

five-year limitations period here, and Plaintiff’s claims are not time-barred. Accordingly, the

10

Court denies Defendants’ Motions.

11

III.

12
13
14
15
16

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that HOA’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 11), is

DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SFR’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 25), is
DENIED.
8
DATED this _____ day of August, 2018.

17
18
19

___________________________________

20

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25

Page 4 of 4