Porter et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
Filing
32
ORDER ADOPTING 28 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING 6 , 8 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; and ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/12/2014. Second Amended Complaint due by 7/9/2014. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DONNA PORTER, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-0431-LJO-SAB
Plaintiffs,
12
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
v.
13
ECF NO. 6, 8, 28
14
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
On April 1, 2014, Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Select
18 Portfolio Servicing, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 6.) On April 2, 2014, Defendants
19 Bank of America, N.A., Sunita Narayanan, ReconTrust Company, N.A., Rosselin Rincon, and
20 Loryn Stone (all defendants collectively referred to as “Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss.
21 (ECF No. 8.) On May 7, 2014, the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued a Findings and
22 Recommendations recommending that both motions to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiffs
23 Donna Porter and Lynn Porter’s (“Plaintiffs”) complaint be dismissed with leave to amend.
24 (ECF No. 28.)
25
The Findings and Recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed
26 within thirty (30) days.
On June 5, 2014, Plaintiffs Donna Porter and Lynn Porter filed
27 objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 31.)
28 / / /
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
2 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the
3 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiffs’
4 objections to the Findings and Recommendations consist only of vague, isolated statements such
5 as “Plaintiff responded pursuant to Rule 12 F” and “Absolutely False.” (Pls.’ Obj. to Magistrate
6 Judge Findings and Recommendations 1.) Plaintiffs do not identify any defect or error in the
7 magistrate judge’s analysis.
8
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1.
The May 7, 2014 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL;
10
2.
Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED;
11
3.
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and
12
4.
If Plaintiffs wish to amend, their Second Amended Complaint must be filed on or
13
before July 9, 2014. If the Second Amended Complaint is not filed by July 9,
14
2014, this action will be closed.
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
June 12, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?