From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turczynski v. Friedman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 19, 2007
CIV-S-07-0890 RRB GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2007)

Opinion

CIV-S-07-0890 RRB GGH PS.

December 19, 2007


ORDER


On October 24, 2007, 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 ten days. On October 30, 2007, plaintiff was re-served to her most current address. No objections were filed.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the findings and recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of her current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School 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 Findings and Recommendations in full.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 24, 2007, are ADOPTED; and

2. The following motions to dismiss are granted: (1) filed July 16, 2007, by James and Susan Friedman, (2) filed June 14, 2007, by nBank Mortgage, and (3) filed July 26, 2007, by Stewart Title Company. Plaintiff's Notice of Lis Pendens, filed May 22, 2007 is discharged, as there is no probable cause to sustain it in this court.


Summaries of

Turczynski v. Friedman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 19, 2007
CIV-S-07-0890 RRB GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2007)
Case details for

Turczynski v. Friedman

Case Details

Full title:DAISY TURCZYNSKI, Plaintiff, v. JAMES FRIEDMAN, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Dec 19, 2007

Citations

CIV-S-07-0890 RRB GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2007)

Citing Cases

Valero v. Bank of Am. Home Loans

Additionally, contrary to plaintiffs' assertions otherwise, the Seventh Amendment is not an independent basis…

Gomez v. Wachovia Mortgage Corporation

" Thus, no statutory right of rescission exists under 15 U.S.C. § 1635(e) "where the loan at issue involves…