N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JER R Y SC OTT a

nd B R IDGETT SC OTT, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. M OR TGAGE ELEC TR ONIC REGISTR

ATION SYSTEM S, INC .; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-15129 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-02081-GMNRJJ
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Gloria M . Nava rro, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe b ruary

11, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd M c KEOW

N a nd W
. FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s . 

# F IL ED
FEB 17 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B ridge tt a nd Je rry Sc ott a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing the ir
c la im s for quie t titleand wrongful fore c losure unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 12(b)(6). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w the orde r of dism issa l denov o and “ m ay a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord.” A SARC O, LLC v . Union Pac . R.R. C o. , 765 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th C ir. 2014). W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s orde r in pa rt a nd re ve rse it in pa rt. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c tua l a

nd le ga l history

of the
c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . I Se c tion 40.010 of the

Ne va da R e v ise d Statute s provide s tha t an a c tion for quie t title“ m ay b e brought by any pe rson a ga inst a

nothe r who c la im s a

n e s tate or inte re s t in re a l prope rty , a dve rse to the pe rson bringing the a c tion, for thepurpose of de te rm ining suc h a dve rse c la im .” Although a “ ple a to quie t title doe s not
re quire any

pa rtic ula r e le m e nts, . . . e a c h pa

rty m ust ple a d a

nd prove his or he r own
c la im to the prope rty

in que stion.” C

hapman v . De utsc heBank N at'l Trust C

o. , 302 P.3d 1103, 1106 (Ne

v. 2013) (c ita

tions a nd quota tion m arks om itte d). The

“ pla intiff’ s right to re lie f the re fore de pe nds on supe riority of title .” Id. In the ir se c o nd a

m e n de d c om

pla int, theSc otts a l le ge d tha t the de e d of trust
e nc um be ring the ir prope rty

– a de e d purporte dly

he ld by de fe nda nts – wa s inva lid 2and, thus, c ould not beuse d to fore c lose on the prope rty . Spe c ific a l ly , the Sc otts

a lle ge d tha

t de fe nda nts obta ine d the de e d of trust from the ir c ousin, Ka

trina Noble , who ne v e r la

wfully he ld titleto the prope rty . The Sc otts furthe r a lle ge d tha t Noble forge d c e rta in doc um e nts, without the Sc otts’ knowle d ge or pe rm ission, whic h
e na ble d he r to ta

ke out a loa

n se c ure d by

the Sc otts’ prope rty . The se de t a ile d fa c t ua l a lle g ations sugge st tha t the Sc otts m ay have supe rior titleto the subje c t prope rty and, thus, a

re suffic ie n t to sta

te a c la i m for quie t title
. Ne ve rthe le s s, the distric t

c ourt dismi sse d

the Sc otts’ quie t titlec la im be c a u se the i r c o m pla int fa i le d to se t forth the spe c ific “ le ga l the o ry , sta tutory ba sis or
c om m on la w ba sis” for the c la im . Howe ve r, the Supre m e C ourt ha s m a de c le ar that , “ unde r the Fe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e dure , a c om pla int ne e d not pin pla i ntiff’ s c la im

for re lie f to a

pre c ise le ga l the ory ” to survivea m otion to dism iss. Sk inne r v . Sw itze r , 131 S. C t. 1289, 1296 (2011) (re ve rsing dismissa l of due proc e s s c la im

unde r R ule 12(b)(6) e ve n though the c om pla int fa ile d to a

rtic ulate a
c le ar due proc e ss the ory ). W e have like wise he l d tha t a pla intiff “ doe s not ne e d to ple a d spe c i fic le ga l the orie s in thec o m p la int, a s long a s the opposing pa rty
re c e ive s notic e a s to wha

t is a t issuein the la

wsuit.” Pruitt v
. C

he ne y , 963 F.2d 1160, 1164 (9th C ir. 1991) (c ita tions a nd quota tion m arks om i tte d); se e also Fontana v . Hask

in , 262 F.3d 871, 877 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ Spe c ific le ga l the orie s

3ne e d not be ple a de d so long a s suffic ie nt fa c tua l a ve rm e nts show tha

t the c la im ant
m ay be e ntitle d

to som e re lie f.” ). In this c a se , the Sc otts’ fa c tua l a lle gations suffic e d to givede fe nda

nts notic e of e xa c tly

what wa s at issuein this la wsuit –
nam e ly , the va lidity

of the de e d of trust. The Sc otts’ fa ilure to ide ntify a spe c ific “ sta

tutory ba sis or c om

m on la w ba sis” for the quie t titlec l a im in the ir c om

p la int wa s a lso not a

prope r ground for dism issa l. A “ c om

p la int ne e d not ide ntify the sta t utory or c onstitutiona

l sourc e of the c la i m ra ise d in orde r to survivea m otion to dism

iss.” Alv are

z v . Hill , 518 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th C ir. 2008); se e also Sagana v . Te norio , 384 F.3d 731, 737 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ W e long a go re je c te d the argum e nt tha

t a spe c ific sta

tute m ust be
nam e d, de sc ribing it a s a

n ‘ atte m pt to e voke wholly

out-m ode d te c hnic a l ple a ding rule s.’ ” (quoting Bow e r

s v . C ampbe ll , 505 F.2d 1155, 1157 n.2 (9th C ir. 1974))). Fina lly , a lthough de fe nda nts a rgue tha t the Sc otts’ quie t

title c la im is tim e ba rre d, this a

rgum e n t is not persua sive . The sta tute of lim ita

tions for quie t title
c la im s in Ne va da

is five y e ars. Ne v. R e v. Stat. §§ 11.070, 11.080. The Sc otts file d the i nsta nt a c tion in Oc tobe r 2010. Thee a rlie st da te on whic h the Sc o tts c ould have file d this quie t titlea c tion wa s four y e a rs e a rlie r, in Nove m

be r 2006, whe n Noble a lle ge dly first re c orde d the prope rty in he r nam e using theforge d de e d. Thus, theSc otts file d this a c tion we l l within the a pplic a ble lim ita tions pe riod. 4II

W e ne e d not de te rm ine whe the r the distric t c ourt should ha v e dism isse d the Sc otts’ wrongful fore c losure c la im for ple a ding de fic ie nc i e s be c a use we c an a ffirm the d ism issa l of the c la i m on othe r grounds. “ A n a c t ion for the tort of wrongful fore c l osure will lieif the trustor or
m ortga gor c an e s ta

blish tha t at the tim e the powe r of sa le wa s e xe rc ise d or the fore c losure oc c urre d, no bre a c h of c ondition or fai lure of pe rform a nc e e xiste d on the m ortga gor’ s or trustor’ s pa rt . . . .” C

ollins v . Union Fe d

. Sav . & Loan Ass’n , 662 P.2d 610, 623 (Nev . 1983). In this c a se , the Sc otts fa ile d to a lle ge tha t the trustor – na

m e ly , Noble – a c tua lly

c om p l ie d with thete rm s of he r loa n a gre e m e nt. To the c o ntra

ry , the Sc otts a

tta c he d a n e xhibit to the ir c om

pla int whic h indic ate s that Noble did, in fa c t, bre a c h c e rta in re pa ym e nt obliga

tions unde r he r loa

n
a gre e m e nt. The re fore , the dism issa l of the Sc otts’ wrongful fore c losure c la im wa s prope r. B e c a

use the Sc otts’ prior ple a ding indic ate s tha t Noble bre a c he d he r loa

n
re pa ym e nt obliga

tions, a ny atte m pt to a m e n d this c la im

would be futile
. Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the dism issa l of the Sc otts’ quie t titlec la i m and
a ffirm the dism issa l with pre

judic e of the ir wrongful fore c losure c l a im . Ea c h pa rty sha l l be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D IN PART and RE V E RSE D IN PART . 5