Porter et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al, No. 1:2014cv00431 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 28 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING 6 , 8 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; and ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/12/2014. Second Amended Complaint due by 7/9/2014. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNA PORTER, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-0431-LJO-SAB Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 13 ECF NO. 6, 8, 28 14 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Defendants. 15 16 17 On April 1, 2014, Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Select 18 Portfolio Servicing, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 6.) On April 2, 2014, Defendants 19 Bank of America, N.A., Sunita Narayanan, ReconTrust Company, N.A., Rosselin Rincon, and 20 Loryn Stone (all defendants collectively referred to as “Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss. 21 (ECF No. 8.) On May 7, 2014, the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued a Findings and 22 Recommendations recommending that both motions to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiffs 23 Donna Porter and Lynn Porter’s (“Plaintiffs”) complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. 24 (ECF No. 28.) 25 The Findings and Recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed 26 within thirty (30) days. On June 5, 2014, Plaintiffs Donna Porter and Lynn Porter filed 27 objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 31.) 28 / / / 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 2 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 3 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiffs’ 4 objections to the Findings and Recommendations consist only of vague, isolated statements such 5 as “Plaintiff responded pursuant to Rule 12 F” and “Absolutely False.” (Pls.’ Obj. to Magistrate 6 Judge Findings and Recommendations 1.) Plaintiffs do not identify any defect or error in the 7 magistrate judge’s analysis. 8 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The May 7, 2014 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL; 10 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED; 11 3. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and 12 4. If Plaintiffs wish to amend, their Second Amended Complaint must be filed on or 13 before July 9, 2014. If the Second Amended Complaint is not filed by July 9, 14 2014, this action will be closed. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill June 12, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.