(PS) Hughey et al v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al, No. 2:2009cv00723 - Document 49 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/3/2010 ORDERING that the proposed 46 Findings and Recommendations filed January 20, 2010, are ADOPTED. Defendants' 9 12 18 motions to dismiss are GRANTED with prejudice and the Clerk is directed to close the case. Plaintiffs' 22 motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED and Defendant's 10 motion for a more definite statement is denied as moot. (Duong, D)

Download PDF
(PS) Hughey et al v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al Doc. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CLIFFORD D. HUGHEY II, and LAURA M. HUGHEY, 11 Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-09-0723 GEB EFB PS 12 vs. 13 WELLS FARGO & CO., et al., 14 15 Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER 16 On January 20, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 17 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 18 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 19 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. 20 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 21 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 22 1983). 23 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 24 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 25 \\\\\ 26 \\\\\ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 20, 2010, are 3 ADOPTED; 4 5 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dckt. Nos. 9, 12, 18, are granted with prejudice and the Clerk is directed to close the case; 6 3. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Dckt. No. 22, is denied; and 7 4. Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement, Dckt. No. 10, is denied as 8 moot. 9 Dated: March 3, 2010 10 11 12 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 13 14 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.