Opinion
2:08-cv-1830-LDG-LRL.
October 20, 2010
ORDER
Defendant WMC Mortgage Corp. ("WMC") has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (#20), and Defendant Safeguard Properties, Inc. ("Safeguard") has joined in WMC's motion (#21). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) will only be granted if the complaint fails to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiffs' first and second causes of action allege violations of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. ("HOEPA"), and the Nevada Unfair Lending Practices Act ("NULPA"), Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598D.100. Plaintiffs' HOEPA claims must fail, however, because Plaintiffs failed to bring suit within the statutorily permissible period for such claims. See 15 U.S.C. 1680(e); 1635(f). Likewise, Plaintiffs' NULPA claims must fail under the jurisprudential doctrine disfavoring retroactive application of legislation. See, e.g., Scott v. Boos, 215 F.3d 940, 943 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs' third and fourth causes of action allege breaches of an implied covenant of good faith and unfair dealing, and various fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs, however, have failed to state any plausible claim regarding the breach of any duty. Finally, as Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state substantive claims against either WMC or Safeguard, Plaintiffs' cause of action for declaratory judgment cannot be sustained, and their punitive damages prayer must be stricken. Accordingly,
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that WMC's motion to dismiss (#20) is GRANTED.
THE COURT FURTHER OTHERS that Safeguard's motion to dismiss (#21) is GRANTED.
Dated this 20 day of October, 2010.