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.)

Download PDF
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

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?