ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELER, Judge.

On December 11, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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. No objections were filed.

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. 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 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Nonetheless, the court declines to adopt the ultimate recommendation because the magistrate judge has not considered whether it would be proper to allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint to state a claim under the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA), after concluding that HOLA preempts plaintiffs' state law claims. The Ninth Circuit has instructed that "`a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.'" Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)); cf. Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend when amendment would be futile).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The court declines to adopt the Findings and Recommendations filed December 11, 2012 (dkt. 18).

2. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for consideration of whether to allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint.