Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Wingfield Springs Community Association et al
Filing
26
ORDER denying ECF No. 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 08/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
8
9
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR
HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE LOAN
TRUSTMORTGAGE LOAN PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2005-11,
10
13
14
15
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
11
12
Case No. 3:16-cv-00632-MMD-VPC
WINGFIELD SPRINGS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, a Nevada non-profit
corporation; WESTLAND
CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Nevada
corporation; THUNDER PROPERTIES
INC., a Nevada corporation.; DOE
INDIVIDUALS I through X; and ROE
CORPORATIONS 1 through 10,
16
Defendants.
17
18
I.
SUMMARY
19
This case concerns a dispute over the constitutionality of a homeowner
20
association (“HOA”) foreclosure sale. Before the Court is Defendant Thunder Properties,
21
Inc.’s (“Thunder Properties”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
22
(“Motion”). (ECF No. 6.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust
23
Company’s (“Deutsche Bank”) response (ECF No. 12) and Thunder Properties’ reply
24
(ECF No. 13). For the reasons discussed below, Thunder Properties’ Motion is denied.
25
II.
BACKGROUND
26
The following facts are taken from the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.)
27
In May of 2005, Kendall Fielding and Cindi Yakimow (“Borrowers”) borrowed
28
$244,000.00 to buy a home at 2690 Lawry Drive in Sparks, Nevada (“the Property”). The
1
loan was secured by a Deed of Trust (“DOT”) on the Property. On December 12, 2012,
2
the DOT was assigned to Deutsche Bank.
3
When Borrowers became delinquent on their HOA dues, Defendant Wingfield
4
Springs Community Association (“the HOA”) recorded a lien on the Property and
5
eventually elected to sell the Property pursuant to Nevada’s HOA foreclosure statutes.
6
On May 28, 2013, the HOA purchased the Property at a non-judicial foreclosure sale for
7
$4,424.71. On January 6, 2014, the HOA conveyed its interest in the Property via
8
quitclaim deed to Defendant Westland Construction Corporation (“Westland”). On
9
February 27, 2014, Westland quitclaimed its interest in the Property to Thunder
10
Properties.
11
Amongst its other claims, Deutsche Bank seeks to quiet title pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
12
§ 2201, NRS § 30.010 et seq., and NRS § 40.010, challenging the foreclosure sale as
13
statutorily defective.
14
The Complaint alleges diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Thunder Properties
15
seeks dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the parties are not
16
diverse because Deutsche Bank and Thunder Properties are citizens of California. (ECF
17
No. 6 at 3.)
18
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
19
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a defendant to seek dismissal of
20
a claim or action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is
21
appropriate if the complaint fails to allege facts that are sufficient to establish subject
22
matter jurisdiction. In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 546
23
F.3d 981, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2008). Subject matter jurisdiction may be met through diversity
24
jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Federal district courts have diversity
25
jurisdiction over lawsuits when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the
26
parties are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). By contrast, federal district
27
courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the
28
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §1331.
1
IV.
DISCUSSION
2
As noted, Thunder Properties argues that the parties are not diverse for purposes
3
of diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6 at 3.) The Bank counters that this Court may maintain
4
jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (ECF No. 12 at 4-
5
7.)
6
Federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction under the “well-pleaded
7
complaint rule” only when a properly pleaded complaint asserts a federal question on its
8
face. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Because Deutsche Bank has
9
alleged that the “opt-in” provision of NRS § 116.3116 is unconstitutional under the due
10
process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
11
Constitution (see ECF No. 1 at 7), thereby making the HOA sale unlawful, this Court
12
must maintain § 1331 jurisdiction over this litigation. See Lowe v. Manhattan Beach City
13
Sch. Dist., 222 F.2d 258, 259–60 (9th Cir. 1955); see also Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678,
14
681–82 (1946).
15
V.
CONCLUSION
16
The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several
17
cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and
18
determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of
19
Thunder Properties’ Motion.
20
21
It is therefore ordered that Thunder Properties’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF No. 6) is denied.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED THIS 14th day of August 2017
_________________________________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?