Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00138/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00138-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John F. Spollen, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Chase Home Finance, LLC, et al.,

Defendant.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-138-TUC-JGZ

ORDER

Before the Court for consideration are four motions and the Report and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge.

This action, originally filed by Plaintiffs John and Lynne Spollen in the Arizona Superior

Court in and for the County of Pima and removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

was referred to Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle for all pretrial proceedings and report and

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1

and LRCiv 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona, Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants Chase Home Finance LLC (CHF) and Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc. (MERS) filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for More Definite

Statement. (Doc. 6.) Defendant Tiffany & Bosco, P.A. (T&B) also filed a Motion to Dismiss.

(Doc. 7.) Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand to State Court and a Motion for Leave to File an

Amended Complaint. (Docs. 17, 24.)

Following review of the pending motions, responses and replies, and hearing oral argument

on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Pyle issued his Report and Recommendation on July 18,

2011, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter

Case 4:11-cv-00138-JGZ-CRP Document 38 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 4
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

 1 Plaintiffs also filed an “objection” to the Report and Recommendation, but it does not take issue

with any of the Magistrate Judge’s findings. (Doc. 34.) Instead, Plaintiffs seek to clarify that they have

filed a redlined copy of their proposed amended complaint with the Court.

- 2 -

an order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend, denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and

denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss as moot. The Report and Recommendation advised

“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.”

Defendant Tiffany & Bosco filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge.1

 Plaintiffs did not file a response to Defendant’s Objections.

The Court finds, after de novo review of the matters presented, that the findings of the

Magistrate Judge shall be accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law

of the Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a R&R by a Magistrate Judge are set forth

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

may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by

the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object

to a 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); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

149-50 (1985). To the extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have

been waived. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are

not filed within fourteen days of service of the R&R); see also McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d

1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on

appeal); Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need only

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

recommendation)).

Case 4:11-cv-00138-JGZ-CRP Document 38 Filed 06/06/12 Page 2 of 4
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 According to the Magistrate Judge, at oral argument, Defendants acknowledged that Plaintiffs’

subsequently filed Amended Complaint likely mooted their Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 33, pg. 3.)

- 3 -

RECOMMENDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS

This case derives from the attempted foreclosure sale of Plaintiffs’ property; Defendants

are all parties that allegedly participated in the loan collection process. After Plaintiffs’

Complaint was removed to federal court, Defendants each moved for dismissal of the Complaint

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendants CHF and MERS also moved for

dismissal pursuant to Rules 8(a)(2), 8(d), 10(b) and 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P. While the motions

to dismiss were pending, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Remand and a Motion for Leave to

Amend the Complaint. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to

Amend the Complaint be granted, that the Motion for Remand be dismissed as premature, and

that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss be denied as moot.2

T&B’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation raises two concerns: first, T&B seeks

clarification that the Report and Recommendation’s statement that the Amended Complaint

“allege[s] several specific acts of wrongdoing by all Defendants and support[s] each alleged act

with facts specific enough to plausibly state a claim for relief against Defendants” is not

intended to be a decision on future motions to dismiss the amended complaint if leave to amend

is granted. The Court agrees, and will adopt the Report and Recommendation with that

clarification.

T&B also takes issue with the Report and Recommendation’s statement that “in the briefing

thus far Defendants have not shown that Plaintiffs’ claim, as alleged, is barred by the Arizona

statute [A.R.S. § 33-807(E)].” T&B contends that the sentence should not be construed as

barring Defendants from arguing a statutory bar for Plaintiffs’ claims against T&B as alleged

in the Amended Complaint. The Court agrees, and will adopt the Report & Recommendation

with that clarification.

//

//

Case 4:11-cv-00138-JGZ-CRP Document 38 Filed 06/06/12 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Pyle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) is

hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this

Court, with the clarification that nothing in the Report and Recommendation shall be construed

as barring Defendants from filing motions to dismiss the claims alleged in Plaintiffs’ Amended

Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File the Amended Complaint

(Doc. 24) is GRANTED; the Clerk of the Court shall file the proposed Amended Complaint

currently lodged at Doc. 25.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 6 and 7) are

DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 17) is denied

without prejudice as premature. 

DATED this 5th day of June, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00138-JGZ-CRP Document 38 Filed 06/06/12 Page 4 of 4