(PS) Schneider v. Bank of America N.A et al, No. 2:2011cv02953 - Document 352 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/12/2017 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 347 are ADOPTED in FULL; Plaintiff's 297 Motion for New Trial is DENIED; and Defendant's 349 Motion to extend time to file a response to plaintiff's objections is DENIED as unnecessary. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
(PS) Schneider v. Bank of America N.A et al Doc. 352 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 No. 2:11-cv-2953-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER BANK OF AMERICA N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE; BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS SERVICING LP; BALBOA INSURANCE COMPANY; HOME RETENTION GROUP; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; CLIFF COLER; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. 20 21 On September 11, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on 24 September 25, 2017, defendant timely filed a response to plaintiff’s objections on October 5, 25 2017, and those filings were considered by the undersigned. 26 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 27 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 28 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 2 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 3 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 4 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 6 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed September 11, 2017, are adopted; 9 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial (ECF No. 297) is denied; and 10 3. Defendant’s motion to extend the time to file a response to plaintiff’s objections (ECF 11 No. 349) is denied as unnecessary. 12 DATED: 10/12/2017 13 /s/ John A. Mendez JOHN A. MENDEZ United States District Court Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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.