Opinion
3:15-CV-00990-AC
02-01-2016
JEFF GRAHAM and AMY MCCOY, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, As Trustee, Successor In Interest To Bank Of America, National Association, Successor In Interest To Lasalle Bank, National Association, As Trustee For Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Wmalt Series 2007-OA3 Trust; and PITE DUNCAN, LLP, Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#27) on December 2, 2015, in which he recommends the Court grant in part and deny in part the Motion (#10) to Dismiss of Defendant U.S. Bank; grant in part and deny in part the Motion (#13) to Dismiss of Defendant Pite Duncan, LLP; and deny Defendants' Motions (#10, #13) to Strike Noneconomic Damages. Plaintiffs filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
In their Objections Plaintiffs reiterate the arguments contained in their Response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, Amended Response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, Sur-Reply to Pite Duncan's Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiffs' statements at oral argument. This Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs' Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#27). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motions (#10, #13) to Strike Noneconomic Damages and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as follows:
1. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory judgment.
2. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs' claims for trespass to real property/nuisance and negligence.
3. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to that portion of Plaintiffs' claim for trespass to chattels related to "Defendants' refusal to allow Plaintiffs to remove their personal property" as set out in the Findings and Recommendation.
4. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to the remainder of Plaintiffs' claim for trespass to chattels.
5. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to that portion of Plaintiffs' Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) claim set out in ¶ 38A of Plaintiffs' Complaint that involves "communications [not] related to actual or reasonably anticipated litigation" as set out in the Findings and Recommendation.
6. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to the remainder of Plaintiffs' UTPA claim.
On January 22, 2016, the Court issued an Order (#32) adopting the Findings and Recommendation and granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. In its Order the Court incorrectly stated it granted this portion of Defendants' Motions and denied Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to the remainder of Plaintiffs' claim for trespass to chattels. The Court issues this Amended Order to correct the error. --------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 1st day of February, 2016.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge