Streambend Properties III, LLC et al v. Sexton Lofts, LLC et al
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau, dated March 27, 2017 348 . 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Judgment 332 is DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Substitution of Parties 345 is DENIED. 4. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Response to Objections 352 is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 5/17/17. (GRR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
STREAMBEND PROPERTIES III, LLC and
STREAMBEND PROPERTIES IV, LLC,
Civil File No. 10-4745 (MJD/SER)
SEXTON LOFTS, LLC, et al.,
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau, dated March
27, 2017. Plaintiffs filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the
record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Rau dated March 27, 2017.
Plaintiffs have also submitted a Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’
Response to Objections [Docket No. 352] on the grounds that Defendants used
four pages of their Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections to discuss the level of
deference the Court should give to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(“CFPB”) materials relied upon by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim that this issue was
not argued in their Objections. In Plaintiffs’ Objections, they appear to argue that
the CFPB is a “precedent-setting body” and that the CFPB’s construction of a
statute is “authoritative.” (Objections at 3-4.) In any event, the Court did not
rely on Defendants’ discussion of the level of deference required in reaching its
decision. As stated in the Report and Recommendation, and adopted by this
Court, because there was no change in the law, the Court need not reach the
question of the level of deference owed to the CFPB’s interpretation of a change
in the law. (See Report and Recommendation at 9 n.22.) Thus, the Court denies
the motion to strike.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau, dated March 27, 2017 [Docket No. 348].
2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Judgment [Docket No. 332] is
3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Substitution of Parties [Docket No. 345] is
4. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’ Response to
Objections [Docket No. 352] is DENIED.
Dated: May 15, 2017
s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
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?