(PS) Popov et al v. Countrywide Financial Corporation et al, No. 2:2009cv02780 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/4/10 ORDERING that the proposed Findings and Recommendations filed 12/18/09, are ADOPTED; Plaintiffs' opposition and proposed amended complaint, 7 8 , are construed together as a request for le ave to amend plaintiffs' complaint; Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their complaint, as submitted on 11/17/09, is granted; Defendants' motion to dismiss, 4 , is denied as moot; Plaintiffs' opposition, 7 , is construed as a request to remand the case to the superior court; and This action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in andfor the County of Sacramento. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Popov et al v. Countrywide Financial Corporation et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANATOLIY POPOV and NATALYA POPOV, 11 Plaintiffs, No. CIV 09-2780 GEB EFB PS 12 vs. 13 14 15 16 COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; RECONTRUST COMPANY; LANDSAFE TITLE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1-50, Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER 17 18 On December 18, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 21 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. 22 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 26 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. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed December 18, 2009, are 3 4 5 6 7 ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiffs’ opposition and proposed amended complaint, Dckt. Nos. 7-8, are construed together as a request for leave to amend plaintiffs’ complaint; 3. Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their complaint, as submitted on November 17, 2009, is granted; 8 4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 4, is denied as moot; 9 5. Plaintiffs’ opposition, Dckt. No. 7, is construed as a request to remand the case 10 11 to the superior court; and 6. This action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and 12 for the County of Sacramento. 13 Dated: March 4, 2010 14 15 16 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
