to declare that (a) numerous loan- and foreclosure-related documents were invalid; (b) no defendant has a valid claim, interest, or title in the property; and (c) eTitle has no right to foreclose on the property.
The defendants filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss all claims. The district court granted the motions and dismissed Mr. Long’s amended complaint with prejudice. Mr. Long filed a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), but that motion was denied. Mr. Long now appeals only the district court’s dismissal of his request for relief under the DJA, not the dismissal of his substantive claims. He asks us to find that his Amended Complaint “was legally sufficient in stating a claim for relief under the [DJA] ” and to remand for the district court to declare whether eTitle and the other defendants have authority to foreclose on his property. Corrected Aplt. Opening Br. at 18.
II. ANALYSIS
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs must allege specific facts that would support the conclusion that they are entitled to relief. Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2012) (“[M]ere labels and conclusions ... will not suffice.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Applying this standard, the district court dismissed all of Mr. Long’s substantive claims for failure to state a claim. It also held that Mr. Long is not entitled to a declaratory judgment because he “has not presented plausible allegations that any of the [loan assignment] documents are invalid.” Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 339 & n.30.
The sole issue Mr. Long presents for our review is whether the DJA request should have been dismissed. See Corrected Aplt. Opening Br. at 12 (“[T]he final judgment in this case dismissed (with prejudice) the claim for relief on appeal under the Declaratory Judgment Act ...; all other claims pleaded are not the subject of this appeal.”); id. at 27 (“Only Homeowner’s request for declaratory relief is sought as the subject of this appeal as against Etitle.”).
The district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the request for a declaratory judgment is subject to de novo review. SEC v. Shields, 744 F.3d 633, 640 (10th Cir. 2014). “This court can affirm the district court’s dismissal on any ground sufficiently supported by the record.” GF Gaming Corp. v. City of Black Hawk, Colo., 405 F.3d 876, 882 (10th Cir. 2005).
The availability of declaratory relief “presupposes the existence of a judicially remediable right.”
Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666, 677, 80 S.Ct. 1288, 4 L.Ed.2d 1478 (1960). No such “judicially remediable right” exists here because Mr. Long chose not to appeal the district court’s dismissal of
any substantive claim—including the action for quiet title that overlaps with his request for declaratory relief. Because Mr. Long’s substantive claims have failed, his request for declaratory relief in relation to those claims is not viable.
See, e.g., Fedorowicz v. Pearce, 641 Fed.Appx. 773, 776 n.2 (10th Cir.) (deeming declaratory judgment remedy “unavailable because it is based on an invalid cause of action”),
cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2422, 195 L.Ed.2d 790 (2016);
Adams v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 546 Fed.Appx. 772, 776-77 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding that declaratory judgment claim failed “because