# (PS) Brown v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

> District Court, E.D. California · February 11, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10016953

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 11, 2020
- **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/10016953

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SUZANNE BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-260-MCE-KJN PS
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
13 v. AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
14 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
(ECF. Nos. 14, 21)
15 Defendants.
16
17 On December 20, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF
18 No. 21), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the
19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On January 9, 2020,
20 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 22), which have been
21 considered by the court.
22 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an
23 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
24 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d
25 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection
26 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law.
27 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s
28 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d
1 | 452, 454 (th Cir. 1983).
2 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,
3 | concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly,
4 | ITIS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 21) are ADOPTED IN FULL;
6 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED;
7 3. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
8 4. Leave to Amend Plaintiff's HBOR Claim (see ECF No. 10 at pp. 6-7) is
9 WITHDRAWN;
10 5. Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 20) is DENIED AS
11 MOOT; and
12 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
13 | IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 | Dated: February 11, 2020

16 MORRISON C. ENGLAND, J
UNITED STATES DISTRI
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10016953. Public record. Not legal advice.