SFR Invs. Pool 1 v. Bank of Am.

• Decision Date: 10 August 2022
• Docket Number: 2:19-CV-1534 JCM (DJA)
• Parties: SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants.

No. 2:19-CV-1534 JCM (DJA)

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 10, 2022

ORDER

Presently before this court is plaintiff SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's (“SFR”) motion to dismiss defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s (“BANA”) counterclaims and affirmative defenses. (ECF No. 70). BANA responded (ECF No. 71), and SFR replied (ECF No. 72).

Also before this court is BANA's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 73). SFR responded (ECF Nos. 76; 78), and BANA replied (ECF No. 81).

Also before this court is SFR's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 74). BANA responded (ECF No. 75), and SFR replied (ECF No. 80).

Also before this court is BANA's motion to strike SFR's responses (ECF Nos. 76; 78) to its motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 79). SFR responded (ECF No. 83), and BANA replied (ECF No. 84).^[1]

I. BACKGROUND

This case involves a dispute over real property located at 9168 Badby Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 (the “property”). On May 5, 2006, Linton A.K. Gamiao, Lindsey D. Gamiao, and Blossom S.F. Gamiao (collectively “the Gamiaos”) obtained a loan to purchase the

1

property, which was secured by a deed of trust identifying Republic Mortgage LLC as the beneficiary. (ECF No. 1). On October 12, 2011, Republic Mortgage assigned its interest in the deed of trust to BANA. (See ECF No. 74 at 2).

On May 25, 2012, Independence Homeowners Association (“the HOA”) recorded a notice of claim of delinquent assessment lien regarding the property after the Gamiaos became delinquent on association dues. (See id.). On May 14, 2014, SFR purchased the property by successfully bidding at a publicly-held foreclosure auction (“foreclosure sale”). On May 23, 2014, the resulting foreclosure deed was recorded in the official records of the Clark County recorder. On September 3, 2019, SFR filed the underlying complaint, alleging one cause of action: quiet title/declaratory relief pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 40.10. (ECF No. 1).

On June 11, 2020, this court granted BANA's motion for summary judgment on SFR's claims (ECF No. 17), on the basis of timeliness. (ECF No. 36). SFR's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13), and BANA's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9), were denied accordingly. Then, on February 1, 2021, this court granted SFR's motion to reconsider (ECF No. 38), and denied all three motions. (See ECF No. 50).

SFR now moves to dismiss BANA's counterclaims and affirmative defenses as untimely. (ECF No. 70). The parties also cross-move for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 73; 74), and BANA moves to strike SFR's responses to its motion for summary judgment as untimely (ECF No. 79).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to dismiss

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires every pleading to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8. Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it does require more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). In other words, a pleading must have plausible factual allegations that cover “all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some

2

viable legal theory.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562 (2007) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original); see also Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).

The Supreme Court in Iqbal clarified the two-step approach to evaluate a complaint's legal sufficiency on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. First, this court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Legal conclusions are not entitled to this assumption of truth. Id. Second, this court must consider whether the well-pleaded factual allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when this court can draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 678. When the allegations have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).

B. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is proper when the record shows that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”^[2] FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). The purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986), and to avoid unnecessary trials on undisputed facts. Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v....