United States District Court, E.D. California
U.S. NATIONAL BANK ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,
ROTONDA LLOPIS, GERALD LLOPIS, Defendants.
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
On January 21, 2015, 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. Defendant Rotonda Llopis filed objections on February 6, 2015, 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. § 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 January 21, 2015, are ADOPTED.
2. Defendants are ordered not to file any more removal petitions and/or notices of removal of this unlawful detainer action or related action involving the same subject matter.
3. If Defendants submit any further removal petitions and/or notices of removal in this Court, the Clerk shall lodge the petition and/or notice and accompanying documents. The Clerk shall not file the documents until it is reviewed by a judge of this Court to determine whether the filing is another removal of this same case or another case involving the same subject matter. This screening requirement shall remain in effect until the state court unlawful detainer litigation is finally resolved.
4. The Plaintiff in the state court action shall file a notice under this case caption informing the Court that the state court litigation has been completed. Such notice shall include a copy of the document(s) showing that the case has been finally resolved.
5. This matter is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and ...