Cesar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/8/13 ORDERING that the proposed Findings and Recommendations filed 10/23/12, are ADOPTED; Plaintiff's motion to remand, 11 is granted; The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento; and Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss, 5 , is denied as moot; Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOSEPH M. CESAR,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-1614-MCE-EFB PS

vs.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., f/k/a
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, f/k/a
WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB; and
DOES 1-25, inclusive,

15
16
17

Defendant.
__________________________________/

ORDER

On October 23, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

18

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

19

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

20

November 6, 2012, and they were considered by the undersigned.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

25

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

26

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979).
1

1

The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley

2

Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

3

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

4

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

5

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

6
7

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed October 23, 2012, are
ADOPTED;

8

2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand, Dckt. No. 11, is granted;

9

3. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State

10
11

of California in and for the County of Sacramento; and
4. Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 5, is denied as moot.

12
13

Dated: January 8, 2013

14
15
16

________________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2