# (PS) Brown v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

> District Court, E.D. California · August 19, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10013333

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 19, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10013333

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10
SUZANNE BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-260-MCE-KJN PS
11
Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
12
v. AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
13
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
(ECF. Nos. 4, 10)
14
Defendants.
15
On July 24, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 10),
16
which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings
17
and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On August 7, plaintiff filed
18
objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 11), which have been considered by
19
the court.
20
This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an
21
objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
22
Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d
23
930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection
24
has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law.
25
See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s
26
conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d
27
452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
28
] Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss with prejudice the
2 | claims for fraud, concealment, unfair competition, implied covenant of good faith, unjust
3 | enrichment, quiet title, and accounting. (See ECF No. 11.) The court has reviewed the applicable
4 | legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings
5 | and recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 10) are ADOPTED in full;
7 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED;
8 3. Plaintiffs second through ninth causes of action, as rooted in the allegations
9 concerning Defendant’s request for relief from the bankruptcy stay, are DISMISSED
10 without leave to amend; and
11 4. Plaintiff’s first cause of action under the Homeowner Bill of Rights is DISMISSED
12 with leave to amend.
13 5. Not later than twenty (20) days following the date this Order is electronically filed,
14 Plaintiff may (but is not required to) file an amended complaint. If no amended
15 complaint is timely filed, this action will be deemed dismissed with prejudice upon no
16 further notice to the parties.
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 Dated: August 16, 2019
19 lA J KC
20 MORRISON SEES
31 UNITED STATES DISTRIC □□□

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10013333. Public record. Not legal advice.