Baker v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons discussed in the accompanying Memorandum, the court OVERRULES the defendant's Objections and ACCEPTS the R&R. Accordingly, the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended (Doc. No. 34 ) is GRANTED and the defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The plaintiff's claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E) is DISMISSED, but the plaintiff's claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) will be permitted to proceed. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 34-1) as a separate document. The matter remains referred to the magistrate judge for case manag ement. Neither party objects to the recommendation that the plaintiff's first Motion for Leave (Doc. No. 32 ) be denied. The court therefore ACCEPTS the magistrate judge's recommendation and DENIES that motion.It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/2/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

SHERI L. BAKER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA d/b/a
CHASE MORTGAGE,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00124
Judge Aleta A. Trauger

ORDER
The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 40) on
January 30, 2017, recommending that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) be
granted in part and denied in part, that the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 32) be denied, and that the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 34) be granted.
Neither party objects to the recommendation that the plaintiff’s first Motion for Leave
(Doc. No. 32) be denied. The court therefore ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s recommendation
and DENIES that motion.
The defendant has filed Objections (Doc. No. 43) to the magistrate judge’s
recommendations that the Motion to Dismiss be denied in part and that the plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint be granted. The defendant argues that the magistrate
judge erred in finding that the plaintiff’s claims are not barred by res judicata. The plaintiff has
filed a response (“Reply to Defendant Opposition to Report and Recommendation”) (Doc. No.
44).

2
For the reasons discussed in the accompanying Memorandum, the court OVERRULES
the defendant’s Objections and ACCEPTS the R&R. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended (Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED and the defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The plaintiff’s
claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E) is DISMISSED, but the plaintiff’s claim under 15
U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) will be permitted to proceed.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. No. 34-1) as a separate document.
The matter remains referred to the magistrate judge for case management.
It is so ORDERED.

ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge