Justin Maghen v. Quicken Loans Inc.

Filing 58

JUDGMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Pursuant to this Courts Amended Order granting Quicken Loans motion for summary judgment 53 ,judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Quicken Loans and against Plaintiff as to the sole claim in the Complaint. Judgmen t also is entered in favor of Quicken Loans on its Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment on the ground that Plaintiff consented to the recording of calls by Quicken Loans. To the extent Quicken Loans Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment requests a d eclaration that California law does not apply to the out-of-state conduct alleged by Maghen and that the application of California law to the out-of-state conduct alleged in this case would violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, those claims are dismissed without prejudice as moot. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)

1
2

JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JUSTIN MAGHEN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,
v.
QUICKEN LOANS INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. : CV 14-03840-DMG (FFMx)

JUDGMENT [51]

1
2
3
4
5

Pursuant to this Court’s Amended Order granting Quicken Loans’ motion for
summary judgment [Doc. # 53], IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED THAT:
Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Quicken Loans and against
Plaintiff as to the sole claim in the Complaint;
Judgment also is entered in favor of Quicken Loans on its Counterclaim for

6

Declaratory Judgment on the ground that Plaintiff consented to the recording of

7

calls by Quicken Loans.

8
9

To the extent Quicken Loans’ Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment
requests a declaration that “California law does not apply to the out-of-state

10

conduct alleged by Maghen” and that “the application of California law to the out-

11

of-state conduct alleged in this case would violate the Commerce Clause of the

12

United States Constitution,” those claims are dismissed without prejudice as moot.

13
14
15

DATED: May 21, 2015
DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-