Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martin v. Litton Loan Servicing Lp

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 28, 2014

RENEE' L. MARTIN, Plaintiff,
v.
LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

On March 12, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on March 26, 2014, and they were considered by the undersigned.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines , 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States , 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist. , 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 12, 2014, are ADOPTED;

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint, ECF No. 77, is granted as follows:

a. Plaintiff's RESPA claim be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.

b. Plaintiff's no contract claim be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

c. Plaintiff's Internal Revenue Code claim be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

d. Plaintiff's quasi contract claim be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

e. Plaintiff's quite title claim be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.

f. Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim be dismissed with prejudice ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.