-WGC Roth et al v. Integrity 1st Financial, LLC et al, No. 3:2011cv00410 - Document 25 (D. Nev. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting 3 Motion to Dismiss.; granting 6 Motion to Dismiss.; denying 9 Motion to Strike.; granting 14 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants Ticor Title of NV, Stanley Silva, MTC Financial dba Trustee Corps & LSI Title dismissed. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 09/14/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LG)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-WGC Roth et al v. Integrity 1st Financial, LLC et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 10 11 12 13 *** ) ERIC J. ROTH and CORIN L. ROTH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) INTEGRITY 1ST FINANCIAL, LLC ; et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) 3:11-CV-0410-LRH-VPC ORDER 14 15 Before the court are defendants Ticor Title of Nevada (“Ticor”) and Stanley S. Silva’s 16 (“Silva”) motion to dismiss (Doc. #31); MTC Financial Inc.’s (“MTC”), dba as Trustee Corps, 17 motion to dismiss (Doc. #6); and LSI Title Agency, Inc.’s (“LSI”) motion to dismiss (Doc. #14). 18 Plaintiffs Eric J. Roth and Corin L. Roth (collectively “the Roths”) filed oppositions to the motions 19 (Doc. ##10, 13, 22) to which defendants replied (Doc. ##11, 20, 23). 20 I. 21 Facts and Procedural History In October 2005, the Roths purchased real property through a mortgage note and deed of 22 trust executed by defendant Integrity 1st Financial, LLC (“Integrity”). The Roths defaulted on the 23 loan and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. 24 Subsequently, on May 2, 2011, the Roths filed a complaint against defendants alleging nine 25 26 1 Refers to the court’s docketing number. Dockets.Justia.com 1 causes of action: (1) debt collection violations; (2) Nevada Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices 2 Act, NRS 598.0923; (3) Nevada Unfair Lending Practices Act, NRS 598D.100; (4) breach of the 3 covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) NRS 107.080; (6) quiet title; (7) fraud; (8) slander of 4 title; and (9) abuse of process. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Thereafter, moving defendants filed the present 5 motions to dismiss. Doc. ##3, 6, 14. 6 II. 7 Legal Standard Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure 8 to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state 9 a claim, a complaint must satisfy the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) notice pleading 10 standard. See Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008). That 11 is, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 12 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Rule 8(a)(2) pleading standard does not require 13 detailed factual allegations; however, a pleading that offers “‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a 14 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action’” will not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. 15 Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 16 Furthermore, Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, 17 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 1949 (quoting 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows 19 the court to draw the reasonable inference, based on the court’s judicial experience and common 20 sense, that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See id. at 1949-50. “The plausibility 21 standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a 22 defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a 23 defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to 24 relief.” Id. at 1949 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 25 26 In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court accepts the facts alleged in the complaint as 2 1 true. Id. However, “bare assertions . . . amount[ing] to nothing more than a formulaic recitation of 2 the elements of a . . . claim . . . are not entitled to an assumption of truth.” Moss v. U.S. Secret 3 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951) (brackets in original) 4 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court discounts these allegations because “they do nothing 5 more than state a legal conclusion—even if that conclusion is cast in the form of a factual 6 allegation.” Id. (citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951.) “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to 7 dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be 8 plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Id. 9 III. Discussion 10 A. Debt Collection Violations 11 Pursuant to NRS § 649, it is a violation of state law to violate any provision of the federal 12 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. NRS § 649.370. Here, 13 the Roths allege that defendants violated the FDCPA by initiating a non-judicial foreclosure 14 without following the proper procedures for attempting to collect a debt. 15 It is well established that non-judicial foreclosures are not an attempt to collect a debt under 16 the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act and similar state statutes. See e.g., Hulse v. Ocwen Fed. Bank 17 FSB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Or. 2002); Charov v. Perry, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65798 (D. Nev. 18 2010) (holding that recording a notice of default is not an attempt to collect a debt because the 19 borrower already consented to allow the foreclosure trustee to record the notice upon default). 20 Therefore, the court finds that the Roths fail to state a claim against moving defendants for 21 violation of the FDCPA, and thereby NRS § 649. 22 B. Nevada Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act 23 Pursuant to NRS 598.0923 it is a deceptive trade practice to conduct business in the State of 24 Nevada without all required state, county or city licenses. NRS 598.0923(1). The Roths allege that 25 defendants violated the statute by recording the underlying notice of default without having a state 26 3 1 business license. However, it is undisputed that defendant LSI took no action in recording the 2 notice of default. Because this defendant took no action in causing the notice of default to be 3 recorded, it cannot have violated the Nevada Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act as a matter 4 of law. 5 Further, the allegations against Ticor and Silva, who actually recorded the notice of default, 6 and MTC who caused the notice of default to be recorded, are conclusory allegations that offer 7 nothing more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a violation. As such, they are 8 insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Moss, 572 F.3d 969. 9 10 C. Nevada Unfair Lending Practices Act NRS 598D.100 prohibits lenders from making loans “without determining, using 11 commercially reasonable means or mechanisms, that the borrower has the ability to repay the home 12 loan.” NRS 598D.100(1)(b). However, this suitability language was added in mid-2007 when the 13 statute was amended. Although the Roths allege that defendants violated the present version of the 14 statute, their loan originated in 2005, prior to the current amendment. Therefore, the Roths’s loan 15 cannot have violated the current statutory language requiring a determination that a borrower has 16 the ability to repay the loan. 17 Additionally, the Roths’s unfair lending practices claim is barred by the applicable statute of 18 limitations. The statute of limitations on an unfair lending practices claim under NRS 598D is two 19 (2) years. See NRS § 11.190(3)(a). The Roths purchased the property in 2005, and did not file the 20 present action until 2011, over four years after the statute of limitations had expired. Accordingly, 21 the court shall grant moving defendants’ motions as to this issue. 22 D. Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 23 Under Nevada law, “[e]very contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith 24 and fair dealing in its performance and execution.” A.C. Shaw Constr. v. Washoe County, 784 25 P.2d 9, 9 (Nev. 1989) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205). To establish a claim for 26 4 1 breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the 2 plaintiff and defendant were parties to a contract; (2) the defendant owed a duty of good faith and 3 fair dealing to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant breached his duty by performing in a manner 4 unfaithful to the purpose of the contract; and (4) the plaintiff’s justified expectations were denied. 5 See Perry v. Jordan, 134 P.3d 698, 702 (Nev. 2006) (citing Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Butch Lewis 6 Prod. Inc., 808 P.2d 919, 922-23 (Nev. 1991). Initially, the court notes that there is no contract between the Roths and defendants Ticor, 7 8 Silva, MTC, or LSI. The only contract at issue is the mortgage note originated by non-moving 9 defendant Integrity. Therefore, the court finds that the Roths have failed to allege a sustainable 10 claim for breach of the covenants of good faith and fair dealing as to these defendants. 11 E. NRS 107.080 12 In their complaint, the Roths allege that defendants improperly foreclosed on their property 13 because the promissory note was severed from the deed of trust and none of the defendants hold the 14 original mortgage note. See Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Nevada law does not require the production of the original note before one of the statutorily 15 16 enumerated parties initiates a non-judicial foreclosure. Weingarter v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 17 702 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1280 (D. Nev. 2010). Therefore, the Roths fail to allege a claim upon which 18 relief can be granted. 19 F. Quiet Title 20 Under Nevada law, a quiet title action may be brought by someone who claims an adverse 21 interest in property. NRS § 40.010. Here, moving defendants do not claim any interest in the 22 property adverse to the Roths’ interest. Therefore, the Roths have no grounds to quiet title against 23 moving defendants. 24 /// 25 /// 26 5 1 G. Fraud 2 “In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances 3 constituting fraud or mistake.” FED . R. CIV . P. 9(b). In order to meet the heightened pleading 4 requirements a plaintiff must specify the time, place, and content of the misrepresentation as well 5 as the names of the parties involved. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 993 n.10 (9th 6 Cir. 1999); see also, Parnes v. Gateway 2000, 122 F.3d 539, 549-50 (8th Cir. 1997) (requiring a 7 plaintiff to allege the requisite who, what, where, when, and how of the misrepresentation). 8 Here, the Roths fail to allege anything more than defendants defrauded them during the loan 9 process. There are no allegations of who failed to provide information or what information was not 10 provided. Further, the Roths fail to specifically allege the requisite “time, place, and specific 11 content of the false representation as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations.” 12 Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, the court finds that 13 the Roths’ allegations are insufficient to support their claim for fraud. 14 H. Slander of Title 15 A claim for slander of title “involves false and malicious communications, disparaging to 16 one’s title in land, and causing special damages.” Executive Mgmt., Ltd. v. Ticor Title Co., 963 P.2d 17 465, 478 (Nev. 1998). 18 Here, the recorded notice of default and notice of trustee’s sale are not false and malicious 19 communications disparaging the Roths’ title. First, the Roths concede that they were in default on 20 their loan. Thus the notice of default does not make a false statement about the title to the property. 21 Second, it is not false that the property was to be sold at a trustee’s sale. Therefore, the court finds 22 that the Roths have failed to state a claim for slander of title. 23 I. Abuse of Process 24 To establish a claim for abuse of process a party must show that an opposing party (1) had 25 an ulterior purpose for bringing a legal action other than resolving a legal dispute, and (2) used the 26 6 1 legal process in a way that is not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. Las Vegas Fetish 2 and Fantasy Halloween Ball, Inc. v. Ahern Rentals, 182 P.3d 764, 767 (Nev. 2008); Georgiou 3 Studio, Inc. v. Boulevard Invest, LLC, 663 F. Supp. 2d 973, 982 (D. Nev. 2009). Here, the court finds that the Roths have failed to allege any facts demonstrating that 4 5 defendants had an ulterior motive in initiating non-judicial foreclosure proceedings other than the 6 resolution of their default on the mortgage note. Further, the process at issue in this action is a non- 7 judicial foreclosure which is not the characteristic legal action contemplated by an abuse of process 8 claim. See e.g., Smith v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp., 2009 WL 1948829, *5 (N.D. Cal. 2009). 9 Therefore, the court finds that the Roths have failed to state a claim for abuse of process. 10 Accordingly, the court shall grant moving defendants’ motions to dismiss.2 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. ##3, 6, 14) are 12 13 GRANTED. Defendants Ticor Title of Nevada; Stanley S. Silva; MTC Financial Inc., dba as 14 Trustee Corps; and LSI Title Agency, Inc. are DISMISSED as defendants in this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. #9) is DENIED as 15 16 moot. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED this 14th day of September, 2011. 19 __________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 The court, in granting defendants’ motions to dismiss, notes that the Roths did not request leave to amend their complaint. However, even if they did request leave to amend, the court would deny the request because they have failed to make any showing that amendment in this particular case would not be futile or that they could overcome the identified pleading defects. 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
