(PS) Thurman, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, et al, No. 2:2009cv03358 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/2/11, RECOMMENDING that Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint 17 , is GRANTED in PART. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to f ile a second amended complaint 23 , is DENIED. Plaintiffs' state law claims are REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Solano; and this case is CLOSED. (Kastilahn, A) Modified on 5/2/2011 (Kastilahn, A). (Certified copy of order sent to Superior Court of the State of CA, County of Solano.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Thurman, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, et al Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAINT CHARLES THURMAN; GWEN THURMAN, 11 Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-09-3358 JAM EFB PS 12 vs. 13 14 15 16 BARCLAYS CAPITAL REAL ESTATE CORPORATION dba HOMEQ SERVICING; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER 17 18 On March 7, 2011, 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.1 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 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 1 26 On March 17, 2011, plaintiff Saint Charles Thurman filed a notice with the court indicating that plaintiffs “accept” the March 7, 2011 findings and recommendations. Dckt. No. 40. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 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. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 7, 2011, are 5 ADOPTED; 6 7 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint, Dckt. No. 17, is granted in part; 8 9 10 11 12 13 3. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Dckt. No. 23, is denied; 4. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano; and 5. The Clerk is directed to close this case. DATED: May 2, 2011 14 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 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.
