-GGH (PS) Rose v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., No. 2:2010cv03250 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr., on 7/7/11. Defendant AHMSI's 5 motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The state law claims are DISMISSED. The TILA claim is DISMISSED. Defendant is directed to file an answer to the remaining federal claims WITHIN 28 days of the filed date of this order.(Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-GGH (PS) Rose v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RONALD ROSE, Plaintiff, 11 12 CIV. NO. S-10-3250 FCD GGH PS vs. 13 14 AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., et al., 15 __________________________________/ ORDER On May 25, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 16 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. Objections were filed on 19 June 7, 2011, a reply was filed on June 24, 2011, and they were considered by the district judge.1 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 20 21 which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 22 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 23 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, 24 1 25 26 Although American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. contends that it was not put on notice that plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA, RESPA and 18 U.S.C. § 2701 “were in fact claims at all,” this defendant removed the action to federal court in part on these very grounds. See Notice of Removal, filed December 6, 2010. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. 2 United 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). 5 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 6 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the May 25, 2011, Findings and Recommendations in 7 full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Defendant AHMSI’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. no. 5) is granted; 9 2. The state law claims are dismissed; 10 3. The TILA claim is dismissed; and 11 4. Defendant is directed to file an answer to the remaining federal claims within 12 28 days of the filed date of this order. 13 DATED: July 7, 2011. 14 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. 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.
