(PS) Eddy v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK EDDY; BOBBIE EDDY, No. 2:18-cv-2267-KJM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION (As Trustee for Freddie 15 Mac MultiClass Certificates Series 3450); BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 16 (As Parent to Bank of America, M.A., as Successor in Interest By Merger with 17 Countrywide Bank, FSB); SERVICE LINK, LLC; MICHAEL M. BAKER, Esq.; 18 Does 1-5, 19 Defendants. 20 21 On September 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiffs filed objections on 24 September 25, 2019, and they were considered by the undersigned. 25 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 26 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 27 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 28 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 1 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 2 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 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 5 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 7 The Findings and Recommendations filed September 11, 2019, are ADOPTED; 8 1. Defendant Baker’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is granted, and plaintiffs’ claims 9 against him are dismissed without leave to amend; 10 2. Defendant BofA and FHLMCs’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is granted as to 11 plaintiffs’ TILA and RESPA claims, and these claims are dismissed with leave to 12 amend; 13 3. Plaintiffs’ TILA claim against defendant Service Link are dismissed with leave to 14 amend; 15 4. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law 16 claims; and 17 5. Plaintiffs are granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 18 complaint as provided in the magistrate judge’s September 11, 2019 findings and 19 recommendations. 20 DATED: January 14, 2020. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28