From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Litton Loan Servicing LP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2015
No. 2:12-cv-970-MCE-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:12-cv-970-MCE-EFB PS

03-19-2015

RENEE' L. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

On February 18, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on March 3, 2015. Defendants filed a response to plaintiff's objections on March 17, 2015. Those filings were considered by the undersigned.

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed February 18, 2015 (ECF No. 131), are ADOPTED; and

2. Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's third amended complaint (ECF No. 119) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

a. Plaintiff's FDCPA claim against defendants Deutsche Bank, Western, and Litton are DISMISSED without further leave to amend;

b. Plaintiff's quiet title claim is DISMISSED without further leave to amend;

c. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's FDCPA claim against Ocwen is DENIED; and

d. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff s RESPA claim is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 19, 2015

/s/_________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.,CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Martin v. Litton Loan Servicing LP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2015
No. 2:12-cv-970-MCE-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015)
Case details for

Martin v. Litton Loan Servicing LP

Case Details

Full title:RENEE' L. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 19, 2015

Citations

No. 2:12-cv-970-MCE-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015)

Citing Cases

Lake v. MTC Fin., Inc.

The Lakes' allegation of robo-signing fails as a matter of law because, as discussed above, the Lakes lack…