Vargas-Rios v. Guild Mortgage Company et al, No. 1:2019cv01592 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 34 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING Application to Confirm Arbitration Award and Motion to Strike signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/12/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Vargas-Rios v. Guild Mortgage Company et al Doc. 35 Case 1:19-cv-01592-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In re the matter of: No. 1:19-cv-01592-NONE-BAM 12 ARBITRATION AWARD OF ROBERT PRESLEY OF HMP ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION DATED APRIL 18, 2019, JORGE-ALBERTO VARGAS-RIOS, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING APPLICATION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND MOTION TO STRIKE 13 14 Applicant. 15 (Doc. Nos. 1, 12, 34) 16 17 Applicant Jorge-Alberto Vargas-Rios, proceeding pro se, initiated this application to 18 19 confirm a purported arbitration award against Guild Mortgage Company (“Guild Mortgage”) and 20 the United States Department of Veteran Affairs – Loan Guaranty Service (“VA”).1 (Doc. No. 1.) 21 Applicant asserted that an arbitration award of $2,034,000.00 had been entered against Guild 22 Mortgage, and he sought to confirm that award under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9 23 (“FAA”). (Id.) Applicant also moved to strike Guild Mortgage’s answer and opposition to his 24 application. (Doc. No. 12.) The application for confirmation of arbitration award was referred to 25 a United States Magistrate Judge for the issuance of findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 26 33.) 27 28 1 The Court dismissed the VA from this action on May 14, 2020, and the matter now proceeds only against Guild Mortgage. (Doc. No. 25.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-01592-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 2 1 On February 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 2 recommending that the application to confirm arbitration award be denied and that applicant’s 3 motion to strike also be denied, finding, among other things, that the purported arbitration award 4 upon which applicant bases his application is a sham. (Doc. No. 34.) The findings and 5 recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that objections thereto were due 6 within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) The time for filing objections has passed and no objections have 7 been filed. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 9 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 10 courts finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, 12 1. 13 ADOPTED IN FULL; 14 15 The findings and recommendations issued on February 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 34) are 2. The application to confirm arbitration award (Doc. No. 1) and the applicant’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 12) are DENIED; and 16 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and terminate this 17 action. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: March 12, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
