Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00572/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00572-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Benito Camacho and Lucina Camacho,

husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Chase Home Finance, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-00572-TUC-FRZ (JM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On November 15, 2010, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9). On November

18, 2010, Plaintiffs were advised of the pendency of the motion and instructed to respond and

that the failure to do so “may in the discretion of the Court be deemed a consent to the

granting of that Motion without further notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing the

complaint and action with prejudice pursuant to Local Rule - Civil 7.2(i).” See Brydges v.

Lewis, 18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). As of the date of this report and

recommendation Plaintiffs have not responded to the pending motion to dismiss.

RECOMMENDATION FOR DISPOSITION BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE 

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District

Court, after its independent review, grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9).

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

Case 4:10-cv-00572-FRZ Document 11 Filed 01/06/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

However, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy

of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District

Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to

the objections. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV

10-00572-TUC-FRZ. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination

of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc).

DATED this 5th day of January, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00572-FRZ Document 11 Filed 01/06/11 Page 2 of 2