Waldo et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing

Filing 37

ORDER-ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Case Closed.; Denied as moot 33 Motion for TRO; granting 6 Motion to Dismiss Case Closed.; granting 21 Motion ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 31 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 1/13/12. (jmr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION CHARLES C. WALDO, ETHANNE S. WALDO, ORDER Plaintiff, Case No. 2:10-CV-0928 v. Judge Clark Waddoups OCWEN LOAN SERVICES, Defendant. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 31) regarding Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 6). The court reviews the report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff argues that “Plaintiffs have been unsuccessful in their previous Court opportunities due to the fact that, while the Courts believe there are facts to the Plaintiffs’ Case, the Courts contend the cases should be heard elsewhere.” (Dkt. No. 10, 2). Plaintiffs also argue that “Ocwen’s attorneys let slip information near or at the end of a case that had been held back and would have helped Plaintiffs.” Id. Without supporting citations to the record by which the court can evaluate these claims, they are rejected. The court notes that Congress has codified the preclusion of prior state proceedings in subsequent federal actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (stating that “[s]uch Acts, records and judicial proceedings [of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession] or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and 1 its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.)”. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss the case due to claim preclusion is upheld in its entirety. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED.1 The clerk’s office is hereby instructed to place Plaintiffs on the court’s restricted-filer list as set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. (Dkt. No. 21, 31.) With the case dismissed, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED as moot. (Dkt. No. 33.) DATED this 13th day of January, 2012. BY THE COURT: ________________________________ Clark Waddoups United States District Judge 1 Because the case is dismissed on grounds of preclusion, an analysis of the substantive arguments is moot. 2

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?