Burton v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Filing 87

ORDER Adopting 86 Findings and Recommendations Denying Plaintiff's 69 Motion for Class Certification, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/30/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DENNIS BURTON,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00307 - LJO - JLT
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION
(Docs. 69 and 86)

Plaintiff Dennis Burton seeks to certify a class of borrowers, who Plaintiff alleges suffered due

18

to Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s policy of signing loan medications prior to booking the modifications

19

into Nationstar’s system. (Doc. 69.) On October 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff failed to

20

show the putative class members have Article III standing, because Plaintiff failed to show they

21

suffered an injury-in-fact. (Id. at 7-11.) Further, the Magistrate Judge determined Plaintiff failed to

22

satisfy the commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23 of the

23

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 11-16.) Although Plaintiff proposed subclasses, he failed to

24

present evidence that the subclasses were sufficiently numerous to satisfy Rule 23. (Id. at 19-21.) For

25

these reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s motion for class certification be denied.

26

Plaintiff was granted twenty-one days from the date of service, or until October 29, 2014, to file

27

any objections to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 86 at 24.) Plaintiff was “advised

28

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s
1

1

order.” (Id., citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)). However, no objections have

2

been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley

3

United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the

4

case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are

5

supported by the record and proper analysis.

6

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

7

1.

IN FULL;

8
9
10
11
12

The Findings and Recommendations filed October 8, 2014 (Doc. 86) are ADOPTED

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to for class certification (Doc. 69) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED
Dated: October 30, 2014
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2