Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08083/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08083-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Baskin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chase Home Finance LLC; Federal Home

Loan Corporation; and Does 1 thru 5, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-08083-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 6), plaintiff's response

(doc. 10), defendants' reply (doc. 11), and defendants' motion for summary disposition (doc.

7). For the reasons that follow, the court grants defendants' motion to dismiss and denies

defendants' motion for summary disposition as moot.

I

On September 29, 2003, plaintiff purchased a home in Camp Verde, Arizona. To

finance his purchase, he executed a promissory note and a deed of trust. Plaintiff later

defaulted on this note and a notice of trustee's sale was recorded on March 3, 2010. While

the sale was first set for June 2, 2010, the sale was postponed several times and the trustee's

sale did not occur until March 21, 2011. Plaintiff refuses to vacate the home and remains on

the property.

Case 3:11-cv-08083-FJM Document 12 Filed 09/14/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of Arizona in Yavapai County on April

20, 2011. Defendants removed this case on May 25, 2011 and now move to dismiss.

II

When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., "a

court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and must accept

all well-pleaded factual allegations as true." Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th

Cir. 2000). The complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Dismissal

under Rule 12(b)(6) may be "based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence

of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

III

Plaintiff filed his complaint more than a year after the notice of trustee's sale was

recorded and almost a full month after the trustee's sale occurred. Under A.R.S. § 33-

811(C), 

[t]he trustor . . . shall waive all defenses and objections to the sale not raised

in an action that results in the issuance of a court order granting relief pursuant

to rule 65, Arizona rules of civil procedure, entered before 5:00 p.m. mountain

standard time on the last business day before the scheduled date of the sale.

Plaintiff did not file a motion in state or federal court before the sale, much less obtain

a court order for injunctive relief. By failing to comply with this statute, plaintiff waived his

claim for relief. He alleges that he "never received proper Notice of Trustee Sale from the

beneficial party in interest" but he does not allege that he received no notice at all. Compl.

¶ 27. Indeed, even if he intended to allege a total lack of notice, the statute does not require

the trustor to have actual notice of the sale. Thus, he waived any defenses or objections to

the sale since he did not obtain injunctive relief before the sale date.

IV

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 6).

Case 3:11-cv-08083-FJM Document 12 Filed 09/14/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING defendants' motion for summary

disposition (doc. 7) as moot.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08083-FJM Document 12 Filed 09/14/11 Page 3 of 3