McManus v. NBS Default Services, LLC, 2:18-cv-2047 JAM AC (PS). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181212995
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 10, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 22. Defendants have filed objections to th
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 10, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 22. Defendants have filed objections to the..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On September 10, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 22. Defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF 25.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 10, 2018 are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
a) Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to (1) negligence; (3) cancellation of voidable contract under Rev. & Tax Code §§ 233304.1, 23305A, and Cal. Corp. Code §§ 191(c)(7); and (8) slander of title; these claims are dismissed without leave to amend;
b) Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to (2) fraud; and (4) to void or cancel assignments of deed of trust, but plaintiff is allowed to amend these claims; and
c) Defendants' motion is DENIED as to (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) violation of California business and professions code section 17200 et seq.; (7) quiet title; and (9) wrongful foreclosure.
Source: Leagle
