Filed: Feb. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 05, 2019
Summary: JUDGMENT GEORGE H. WU , District Judge . The following four motions came on regularly for hearing before this Court on January 31, 2019: 1. Plaintiffs Alfredo Hernandez and Graciela Hernandez's ("Plaintiffs") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against defendants Ditech Financial LLC ("Ditech"), Specialized Loan Servicing LLC ("SLS"), Five Brothers Mortgage Company Services and Securing, Inc. ("Five Brothers"), and Standard Field Services, LLC ("SFS") [ECF 120]; 2. Defendant SLS's Motion
Summary: JUDGMENT GEORGE H. WU , District Judge . The following four motions came on regularly for hearing before this Court on January 31, 2019: 1. Plaintiffs Alfredo Hernandez and Graciela Hernandez's ("Plaintiffs") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against defendants Ditech Financial LLC ("Ditech"), Specialized Loan Servicing LLC ("SLS"), Five Brothers Mortgage Company Services and Securing, Inc. ("Five Brothers"), and Standard Field Services, LLC ("SFS") [ECF 120]; 2. Defendant SLS's Motion f..
More
JUDGMENT
GEORGE H. WU, District Judge.
The following four motions came on regularly for hearing before this Court on January 31, 2019:
1. Plaintiffs Alfredo Hernandez and Graciela Hernandez's ("Plaintiffs") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against defendants Ditech Financial LLC ("Ditech"), Specialized Loan Servicing LLC ("SLS"), Five Brothers Mortgage Company Services and Securing, Inc. ("Five Brothers"), and Standard Field Services, LLC ("SFS") [ECF 120];
2. Defendant SLS's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 121];
3. Defendant Ditech's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 124]; and
4. Defendants Five Brothers and SFS's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 125].
After considering the moving, opposition, and reply papers, all evidence submitted in support and opposition, arguments of counsel, and all other matters presented to the Court in connection with the four motions identified above, for the reasons set forth in the Court's Minute Order of February 4, 2019 [ECF 167], IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that summary judgment is entered in favor of SLS and against Plaintiffs as to Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action for Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), on the grounds that the cause of action is time-barred.
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that summary judgment is entered in favor of SLS and Ditech and against Plaintiffs as to Plaintiffs' Fifth Cause of Action for Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), on the grounds that these defendants' investigations of the dispute were reasonable, and Plaintiffs could not establish that the information on the reports was inaccurate.
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that summary judgment is entered in favor of Ditech, Five Brothers, and SFS as to Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action for Violation of the FDCPA, on the grounds that these defendants were not "debt collectors" except for under Section 1692f(6) of the FDCPA, and on the further grounds that Plaintiffs did not present any evidence that Ditech was unauthorized to enforce the applicable security interest.
All federal law claims having been decided on summary judgment in favor of SLS, Ditech, Five Brothers, and SFS and against Plaintiffs, it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the following state law claims are dismissed, without prejudice, to Plaintiffs' right to reassert them in a proper venue: (1) Plaintiffs' Second Cause of Action against all defendants for Violation of California's Rosenthal Act; (2) Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action against defendants Ditech, Five Brothers, and SFS for Trespass; (3) Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action against defendants Ditech, Five Brothers, and SFS for Invasion of Privacy — Intrusion Upon Seclusion; and (4) Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action against defendants SLS and Ditech for Violation of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code section 1785.25(a).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, and in the Court's Minute Order of February 4, 2019 [ECF 167], it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT Plaintiffs take nothing, that this action be dismissed, and that defendants SLS, Ditech, Five Brothers, and SFS recover their respective costs, to the extent permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and Central District of California Local Rule 54.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
