Hunter v. U.S. Bank National Association

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 31, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00543
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 LARRY L. HUNTER, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-00543-GMN-BNW 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 9 Pending before the Court is Defendant U.S. Bank National Association’s 10 (“Defendant’s”) Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 8).1 Plaintiff Larry L. Hunter (“Plaintiff”) filed 11 a Response, (ECF No. 18), Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF No. 21), and Plaintiff filed a Sur 12 Reply, (ECF No. 23). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 13 Motion to Dismiss. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 This case arises from Plaintiff’s alleged default on the loan he obtained to finance the 16 purchase of real property located at 4074 Blue Manor Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89032. (See Mot. 17 to Dismiss (“MTD”) 2:18–20). Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a document in state 18 court styled as a Motion for Summary Judgment, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff’s 19 Complaint, which seeks discharge of the loan obligation as well as damages totaling 20 $1,500,000.00. (See Compl. ¶ 9, Ex. 1 to Petition for Removal, ECF No. 4). Defendant 21 22

23 1 Also pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Deny, (ECF No. 10), regarding the Motion for 24 Summary Judgment attached as an exhibit to the Petition for Removal. Plaintiff has not filed a document styled as a Complaint. Rather, he began the case by moving for summary judgment in state court. (See Pl.’s Mot. for 25 Summ. J., Ex. 1 to Pet. for Removal, ECF No. 4). Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and its Motion to Deny regarding the Motion for Summary Judgment are both the same document. (See ECF Nos. 8, 10). Hereinafter, the Court references only the Motion to Dismiss in its discussion. 1 removed the case to this Court and now moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a 2 claim upon which relief can be granted. (See Pet. Removal, ECF No. 4); (MTD 3:16–13:2). 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) where a pleader fails to state a claim upon 5 which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 6 555 (2007). A complaint “that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain 7 statement of the claim showing that [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A 8 pleading must give fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests, 9 and although a court must take all factual allegations as true, legal conclusions couched as 10 factual allegation are insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Accordingly, Rule 12(b)(6) 11 requires “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 12 cause of action will not do.” Id. 13 “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 14 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 15 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “A claim has facial plausibility 16 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 17 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. This standard “asks for more than a 18 sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. 19 If the court grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, leave to amend should 20 be granted unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by 21 amendment. DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant 22 to Rule 15(a), the court should “freely” give leave to amend “when justice so requires,” and in

23 the absence of a reason such as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the 24 movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue 25 1 prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the 2 amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 Plaintiff fails to provide adequate notice of the allegations he asserts against Defendant. 5 As stated above, a pleading must give “fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds 6 on which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of this 7 requirement is not only to provide defendants with a fair opportunity to respond to plaintiff’s 8 allegations, but also to ensure the effective use of the court’s resources. See McHenry v. Renne, 9 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding dismissal appropriate under Federal Rule of 10 Civil Procedure 8 because “[p]rolix, confusing complaints . . . impose unfair burdens on 11 litigants and judges.”). 12 Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not provide fair notice of the claims asserted and the 13 grounds upon which they rest because the face of the Complaint fails to identify a single claim 14 asserted against Defendants. Rather, Plaintiff appends over 100 pages of exhibits to the 15 Complaint and asserts that, “[t]he grounds on which this motion is based are stated with 16 particularity in Plaintiff’s Letters and Notices and Certificate of Nonresponse, which is 17 incorporated herein.” (Compl. ¶ 1). 18 The Court is unable to ascertain the causes of action Plaintiff alleges. Plaintiff’s 19 Complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled 20 to relief;” it is not the role of the Court to formulate Plaintiff’s case for him. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 8(a)(2); Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (“If the factual 22 elements of a cause of action are scattered throughout the complaint but are not organized into

23 a ‘short and plain statement of the claim,’ dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a) is proper.”); 24 see also Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Baltes, 15 F.3d 660, 662 (7th Cir. 1994) (“District 25 judges are not archaeologists. They need not excavate masses of papers in search of revealing 1 tidbits.”). Plaintiff’s reference to the Complaint’s exhibits does not provide Defendant or the 2 Court with adequate notice of the legal theories he seeks to pursue or the facts upon which 3 those theories rest. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to 4 amend. 5 IV. CONCLUSION 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Ex. 1 to Petition for Removal, 7 ECF No. 4), is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint 8 within twenty-one (21) days from entry of this Order. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 10 Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 10), is DENIED as moot. 11 DATED this _3_1___ day of January, 2020. 12 13 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 14 United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25