(PS) HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Contreras et al, No. 2:2012cv01338 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/19/12: MOTION to remand 4 is granted and this matter is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sutter. Plaintiff's request for attorneys fees and costs is denied. Copy of remand order sent to Superior Court. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PS) HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Contreras et al Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 HSBC BANK OF USA N.A., AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF ACE SECURITIES CORP. HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST AND FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ACE SECURITIES CORP. HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2007-DI ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, Plaintiff, 14 No. CIV-S-12-1338-KJM-KJN-PS vs. 15 16 FERNANDO O CONTRERAS, et al., 17 Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER 18 On August 24, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 19 20 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 22 23 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility 24 to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), 25 service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 2 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 4 1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to 5 be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 24, 2012, are ADOPTED; 8 2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 4) is granted and this matter is 9 remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sutter; 10 3. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied; and 11 4. The Clerk of Court shall vacate all dates and close this file. 12 DATED: November 19, 2012. 13 14 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.