(PS) Green v. Alliance Title et al, No. 2:2010cv00242 - Document 70 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/10/11 ORDERING 69 Findings and Recommendations are adopted in full; 59 Motion to Remand is Granted; This action is REMANDED to Solano County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. Defendants' 60 Motion to Dismiss, 64 Motion to Dismiss and 67 Motion to Strike are denied without prejudice to them being re-filed in the state court action. CASE CLOSED.(Matson, R)

Download PDF
(PS) Green v. Alliance Title et al Doc. 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KWANZA GREEN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:10-cv-00242-MCE-EFB PS vs. ORDER ALLIANCE TITLE; CMG MORTGAGE, INC.; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING, CORP.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 16 17 Defendants. __________________________________/ 18 On December 3, 2010, 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 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 /// 26 /// 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 December 3, 2010, are 5 ADOPTED; 6 2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand, Dckt. No. 59, is granted; 7 3. This action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and 8 9 for the County of Solano; and 4. Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dckt. Nos. 60 and 64, and defendants’ motion 10 to strike the lis pendens, Dckt. No. 67, are denied without prejudice to them being re-filed in the 11 state court action. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 10, 2011 14 15 16 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, 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.