Barnes v. Chase Home Finance, LLC et al

Filing 101

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation 82 . Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc.s Motion 25 to Dismiss Plaintiff Timothy Barnes' statutory damages claims against it for failure to state a claim. The Court also concludes IBMs Request 91 for the Court to further clarify its Order 50 issued on October 18, 2011, is moot. Signed on 03/06/2012 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

TIMOTHY BARNES,

3:11-CV-142-PK

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC; CHASE
BANK USA, N.A.; IBM LENDER
BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES,
INC.; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10;
and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and
Recommendation (#82) on December 9, 2012, as to the remaining
unresolved issue in Defendant IBM Lender Business Process
Services, Inc.’s

Motion (#25) to Dismiss Plaintiff Timothy

Barnes' statutory damages claims against it for failure to state
a claim.

1 - ORDER

The Magistrate Judge recommended the Court deny the

Motion.

The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its
obligation to review the record de novo.

Shiny Rock Min. Corp v.

U.S., 825 F.2d 216, 218. (9th Cir. 1987).

See also Lorin Corp.

v. Goto & Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983).

Having

reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find
any error.
Also before the Court is Defendant IBM’s Request (#91) that
the Court include in this Order language to clarify that
Plaintiff was to exclude from his amended pleadings "time-barred
civil damages allegedly arising from the subject loan's
origination documents from 2007, consistent with" this Court's
Order (#50).

The Court notes that while these Findings and

Recommendation have been pending and since the filing of IBM's
Request, the Magistrate Judge has supervised the filing of
amended pleadings, and Plaintiff has now filed his Second Amended
Complaint (#95) to which Defendants have filed Answers and
Amended Answers (#96, #97, #98, #99, #100).

In particular, the

Court notes Paragraph 79 of IBM's Amended Answer (#100) asserts
an affirmative defense based on the statute of limitations.
Court hereby confirms its adherence to the time-limitations
analysis set out in its Order (#50), but does not see a need

2 - ORDER

The

otherwise to restate that analysis here.

To this extent, the

Court concludes IBM's Request (#91) is moot.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and
Recommendation (#82).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant

IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc.’s

Motion (#25) to

Dismiss Plaintiff Timothy Barnes' statutory damages claims
against it for failure to state a claim.

The Court also

concludes IBM’s Request (#91) for the Court to further clarify
its Order (#50) issued on October 18, 2011, is moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of March, 2012.

/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER