-DAD (PS) Higareda, et al v. Option One Mortgage, et al, No. 2:2011cv01473 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/19/11. This action is REMANDED to Superior Court of CA, County of Sacramento. Defendants' 11 , 14 motions to dismiss are DENIED as moot. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
-DAD (PS) Higareda, et al v. Option One Mortgage, et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ISMAEL HIGAREDA and VICTORIA PRECIADO, 11 Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-11-1473 KJM DAD PS 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302. On September 13, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and 20 recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 21 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after 22 service of the findings and recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and no party 23 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to 2 be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 13, 2011 (ECF No. 20) are 5 6 7 adopted in full; 2. This action is summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento for lack of federal question jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims; 8 3. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 11 and 14) are denied as moot; and 9 4. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 10 DATED: December 19, 2011. 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE /higareda-preciado1473.jo 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2