Schmidt v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for 19 Report and Recommendation, 8 Motion to Dismiss filed by PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, 9 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Bank of America, NA, and REMANDING CASE to Saginaw County Circuit Court. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SSch)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
TAMIKA SCHMIDT,
Plaintiff,
v

Case No. 14-cv-14728
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, and
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Defendant.
__________________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT
PENNYMAC’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING DEFENDANT BANK OF
AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND REMANDING THE CASE TO THE
SAGINAW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
On October 9, 2014, Plaintiff Tamika Schmidt filed suit against Defendants PennyMac
Loan Services, LLC, and Bank of America, NA in connection with the foreclosure of her
residence. Specifically, Schmidt claimed that PennyMac violated Regulation X’s continuity of
contract requirements, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.40 promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau and that Bank of America committed the state law tort of silent fraud. PennyMac
removed the case to this Court citing federal question jurisdiction.
On January 12, 2015, each Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Schmidt’s claim against
them. On May 1, 2015, Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a report recommending that
Defendant PennyMac’s motion to dismiss be granted because Regulation X did not provide a
private right of action. And because the alleged violation of Regulation X was the sole basis for
federal jurisdiction, Judge Morris recommended denying Defendant Bank of America’s motion
to dismiss the state law claim and remanding the claim to the Saginaw County Circuit Court.

Although Magistrate Judge Morris’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action
may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the
report, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed any objections. The election not to file objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and
recommendation waives any further right to appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
(ECF No. 19) is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant PennyMac’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is
GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant Bank of America’s motion to dismiss (ECF No.
9) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It is further ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Saginaw County Circuit
Court.

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: May 20, 2015

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on May 20, 2015.
s/Karri Sandusky
Karri Sandusky, Acting Case Manager

-2-