Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02423/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02423-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

11md2286-MMA (MDD)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT 

MANAGEMENT, INC. TELEPHONE 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 

LITIGATION

This document relates to the member 

cases listed on Exhibit 1 to this Order

Case No.: 11md2286-MMA (MDD)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; AND

[Doc. No. 672]

GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

DISMISSAL

[Doc. No. 615]

On August 10, 2018, a group of counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) jointly moved for the Court’s approval of a discovery 

questionnaire and a related protective order providing for limited discovery. Doc. No. 

603. On August 15, 2018, the Court ordered any Plaintiff to object to the proposed 

questionnaire and related procedures. Doc. No. 604. Having received no objections, the 

Court ordered all Plaintiffs in this MDL to complete and serve a discovery questionnaire 

within 45 days. Doc. No. 608. The Court permitted Defendants to seek dismissal of any 

cases in which Plaintiffs failed to serve a completed questionnaire. Id.

On November 13, 2018, Defendants moved for an order to show cause why cases 

in which Plaintiffs failed to timely serve a completed questionnaire should not be 

Case 3:14-cv-02423-MMA-MDD Document 39 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

11md2286-MMA (MDD)

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

dismissed. Doc. No. 615. The Court granted the motion and ordered that Plaintiffs who 

did not complete the questionnaire show cause why their cases should not be dismissed 

on or before November 30, 2018. Doc. No. 617. Several Plaintiffs responded. See

Docket. On January 14, 2019, the Court refused to recommend dismissal in cases where 

Plaintiffs served their discovery questionnaires late, but indicated it would recommend 

dismissal of any cases where Plaintiffs failed to respond. Doc. No. 657. Some Plaintiffs 

responded to the January 14 Order, and the Court granted them relief. Doc. Nos. 662, 

671. On February 6, 2019, the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin, United States Magistrate 

Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) pursuant to section 636(b)(1)(B) 

of title 28 of the United States Code and Civil Local Rule 72.1 recommending that the 26 

cases in which Plaintiffs had not responded to the Court’s order to show cause be 

dismissed with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 72.1; Doc. No. 

672. No objections to the R&R have been filed, and the time for filing objections has 

expired. See Doc. No. 672 at 7-8; see also Docket.

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R are set 

forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Where the parties object to an R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de 

novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When neither party 

objects to an R&R, or to portions thereof, the district court is not required to conduct a de 

novo review, or “any review at all.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149; see also Wang v. Masaitis, 

416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district judge may nevertheless “accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate 

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. 

Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 

2006).

Case 3:14-cv-02423-MMA-MDD Document 39 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

11md2286-MMA (MDD)

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

Here, objections to the R&R were due no later than February 20, 2019. Doc. No. 

672 at 7-8. Moreover, Plaintiffs in the 26 cases in which dismissal is recommended have 

failed to respond to any order of the Court or oppose Defendants’ motions since at least

November 13, 2018, when Defendants filed their motion for order to show cause. See 

Doc. No. 615; see also Docket. Accordingly, the Court finds that Judge Dembin issued 

an accurate report and well-reasoned recommendation that the 26 cases in which 

Plaintiffs did not complete and serve discovery questionnaires or respond to the Court’s 

order to show cause be dismissed with prejudice. The Court, therefore, ADOPTS the 

R&R in its entirety and GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion for order to show cause 

why the cases in which Plaintiffs failed to timely respond to the discovery questionnaire 

should not be dismissed. 

As such, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice all claims brought by Plaintiff 

Aisha Richardson in Miller, et al. v. Midland Funding LLC, et al., 3:17cv473-MMA 

(MDD).1 The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate Plaintiff Aisha Richardson as to 

3:17cv473-MMA (MDD). 

Additionally, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice the following cases in their 

entirety and the Clerk of Court is instructed to close these cases:

1. Carter v. Midland Funding LLC, et al., 3:14cv1160-MMA (MDD)

2. Clark v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:16cv2078-MMA (MDD)

3. Conger v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:16cv2365-MMA (MDD)

4. De La Cruz v. Midland Credit Management, et al., 3:17cv1639-MMA 

(MDD)

5. Floyd v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:14cv2423-MMA (MDD)

6. Holland v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:14cv506-MMA (MDD)

7. Jesula v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:15cv2009-MMA (MDD)

 

1 A typo in the R&R refers to this case as 15cv473. Doc. No. 672 at 7.

Case 3:14-cv-02423-MMA-MDD Document 39 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

11md2286-MMA (MDD)

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

8. King v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:14cv2909-MMA (MDD)

9. Laurore v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:16cv2487-MMA (MDD)

10. Leone v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:14cv905-MMA (MDD)

11. Maitlen v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al., 3:15cv2636-MMA 

(MDD)

12. McCulley v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:16cv1361-MMA (MDD)

13. McDonald v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:14cv689-MMA (MDD)

14. McGee v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:14cv1317-MMA (MDD)

15. Miller v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:15cv710-MMA (MDD)

16. Linko v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al., 3:14cv1442-MMA 

(MDD)

17. Neal v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:15cv896-MMA (MDD)

18. Nelson v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:15cv2008-MMA (MDD)

19. Pacheco Jr. v. Midland Funding, LLC, 3:17cv451-MMA (MDD)

20. Pugh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 3:16cv1977-MMA (MDD)

21. Vasquez v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al., 3:16cv1294-MMA 

(MDD)

22. Ward, et al. v. Credit One Bank, NA, et al., 3:17cv448-MMA (MDD)

23. Watters v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al., 3:17cv1687-MMA 

(MDD)

24. Wentworth v. Midland Funding, LLC, 3:14cv1355-MMA (MDD)

25. Wong v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al., 3:14cv1538-MMA (MDD)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2019

Case 3:14-cv-02423-MMA-MDD Document 39 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4