Miller v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems et al, No. 2:2009cv01599 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/14/2009 recommending that this action be dismissed re 1 Notice of Removal. Objections to F&R due w/in 20 days. Motions 15 and 18 referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton (Matson, R) Modified docket text on 12/18/2009 (Waggoner, D).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Miller v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems et al Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HERBERT MILLER, 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1599 LKK KJM PS vs. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, et al., Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Defendants’ motions to dismiss are pending before the court. At the hearing on 17 this matter, plaintiff informed the court that he had filed a petition for bankruptcy. Review of the 18 bankruptcy docket indicates plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy on September 17, 2009. See 19 Bankruptcy Court, E. D. Cal., case no. 09-39991, docket no. 1. Although it appears plaintiff has 20 failed to list his claims against the present defendants as an asset (see id., docket no. 30, schedule 21 B, no. 21), plaintiff is no longer the “real party in interest” for the prosecution of the instant 22 lawsuit. See Cobb v. Aurora Loan Services, 408 B.R. 351 (E. D. Cal. 2009). 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 25 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 2 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 3 captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the 4 objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties 5 are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 6 the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 DATED: December 14, 2009. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 006 26 miller.ooh 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.
