Anderson et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting 21 Report and Recommendations.; granting in part and denying in part 6 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (dks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ERIC L. ANDERSON and CHRISTINE
T. ANDERSON, et al.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:11-CV-00231-EJL-REB
ORDER ON REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST
COMPANY AMERICAS, et al.,
Defendants.

On June 5, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and
denied in part. (Dkt. 21.) Any party may challenge a magistrate judge’s proposed
recommendation regarding by filing written objections within ten days after being served
with a copy of the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
district court must then “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The district
court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 1

made by the magistrate. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither side has filed objections
to the report and recommendation. The Court has therefore reviewed the Report and
Recommendation in light of the parties briefing on the Motion and finds that the Magistrate
Judge identified the correct legal standards and properly applied those standards to the
record. (Dkt. 21.)
ORDER
Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, this Court
finds that Magistrate Judge Bush’s Report and Recommendation is well founded in law and
consistent with this Court’s own view of the evidence in the record. Acting on the
recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bush, and this Court being fully advised in the
premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on
June 5, 2012, (Dkt. 21), should be, and is hereby, INCORPORATED by reference and
ADOPTED in its entirety and THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 6) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as
follows.
1)

Plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
violations, and negligence are all dismissed without prejudice.

2)

Plaintiffs’ claims for quiet title, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief are not
dismissed.

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 2

3)

Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1, the parties shall meet and determine a joint
litigation plan1 and if the case is suitable for an alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) program such as arbitration, mediation2 or judicial settlement
conference.

4)

On or before July 18, 2012, the parties shall file with the court the a joint
litigation plan.

DATED: July 2, 2012

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

1

The litigation plan form can be found at http://www.id.uscourts.gov/forms-dc/LITPLAN_ejl.pdf.

2

Pursuant to Local Rule 16.5, the parties shall discuss and determine whether or not they will
participate in a mediation program. Mediation is a process whereby a trained, experienced and impartial
neutral, selected by the parties and or the Court, will facilitate discussion, and assist in identifying issues and
generating options in an attempt to resolve the dispute which prompted the litigation.
A party can move for withdrawal from the mediation process upon a showing that reasons exist as
to why mediation would not be productive or otherwise should not a occur.
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 3