Martin v. Litton Loan Servicing LP

Filing 134

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/19/2015 ORDERING that the 131 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED. Defendant's 119 motion to dismiss plaintiff's third amended complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RENEE’ L. MARTIN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-970-MCE-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On February 18, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

18

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings

19

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on March

20

3, 2015. Defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s objections on March 17, 2015. Those filings

21

were considered by the undersigned.

22

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

23

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

24

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

25

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court

26

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United

27

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

28

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
1

1

The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

2

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

4
5
6
7

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed February 18, 2015 (ECF No. 131),
are ADOPTED; and
2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF No. 119) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

8
9

a. Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim against defendants Deutsche Bank, Western, and
Litton are DISMISSED without further leave to amend;

10

b. Plaintiff’s quiet title claim is DISMISSED without further leave to amend;

11

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FDCPA claim against Ocwen is

12
13
14
15

DENIED; and
d. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s RESPA claim is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2015

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