Thurman et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA et al
Filing
42
ORDER adopting 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/2/11, RECOMMENDING that Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint 17 , is GRANTED in PART. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to f ile a second amended complaint 23 , is DENIED. Plaintiffs' state law claims are REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Solano; and this case is CLOSED. (Kastilahn, A) Modified on 5/2/2011 (Kastilahn, A). (Certified copy of order sent to Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Solano.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAINT CHARLES THURMAN;
GWEN THURMAN,
11
Plaintiffs,
No. CIV S-09-3358 JAM EFB PS
12
vs.
13
14
15
16
BARCLAYS CAPITAL REAL ESTATE
CORPORATION dba HOMEQ SERVICING;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; QUALITY
LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER
17
18
On March 7, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
19
herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the
20
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1
21
Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v.
22
United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
23
reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
24
1983).
25
1
26
On March 17, 2011, plaintiff Saint Charles Thurman filed a notice with the court indicating
that plaintiffs “accept” the March 7, 2011 findings and recommendations. Dckt. No. 40.
1
1
2
The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,
concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.
3
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
4
1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 7, 2011, are
5
ADOPTED;
6
7
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint, Dckt. No.
17, is granted in part;
8
9
10
11
12
13
3. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Dckt. No. 23,
is denied;
4. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Solano; and
5. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DATED: May 2, 2011
14
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?