Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01518/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01518-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gesele Marsh
Plaintiff
Terrance Marsh
Plaintiff
Nations Direct Mortgage, LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE MARSH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01518-KES-CDB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docs. 22, 31)

Plaintiffs Terrance Marsh and Gesele Marsh, proceeding pro se, initiated this action 

against Defendant Nations Direct Mortgage, LLC. Doc. 1. Plaintiffs raise two claims against 

defendant: (1) violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”); and (2) violation of the 

California Consumer Credit Report Agencies Act (“CCRAA”). Id. On July 19, 2024, defendant 

filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 22. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion to dismiss, 

and instead filed a “notice for separation from federal and state litigation and request for 

bifurcation.” Doc. 27.

On July 31, 2024, the motion to dismiss was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for 

the preparation of findings and recommendations and/or other appropriate action. Doc. 25. On 

August 21, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant defendant’s 

motion to dismiss. Doc. 31. The magistrate judge found plaintiffs failed to allege that any credit 

Case 1:23-cv-01518-KES-CDB Document 40 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 3
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

reporting agency (“CRA”) had notified defendant that the information in plaintiffs’ credit report 

was incomplete or inaccurate. Id. at 6. The magistrate judge also determined that plaintiffs had 

not alleged that defendant failed to investigate, or failed to correct or delete, the alleged 

inaccurate information. Id. at 7. Rather, the “complaint indicates Defendant did correct the 

information it reported to the CRAs.” Id. The magistrate judge found that plaintiffs’ FCRA 

claim failed as a matter of law, and that their CCRAA claim failed for the same reason as their 

FCRA claim. Id.

The magistrate judge recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted and that

plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed with leave to amend.1 Id. Although the findings and 

recommendations questioned whether plaintiffs would be able to sufficiently state cognizable 

claims in an amended complaint, they recommended the Court grant plaintiffs leave to file a first 

amended complaint to remedy the identified deficiencies to the extent plaintiffs can do so. Id. 

at 8.

On August 28, 2024, defendant filed an objection to the finding and recommendations. 

Doc. 32. Defendant objects solely to the recommendation that plaintiffs be granted leave to 

amend. Id. at 2. Defendant contends “the addition of any facts necessary to cure either of 

Plaintiff’s claims would contradict their own Complaint admissions, [and] requests the Court 

adopt the initial recommendation in the F&R to grant the motion to dismiss with prejudice and 

without further leave to amend.” Id.

On September 11, 2024, plaintiffs lodged an amended complaint without defendant’s 

written consent or the court’s leave. Doc. 33; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiffs also filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations and a response to defendant’s objection, arguing 

that they should be granted leave to amend to cure the deficiencies in their complaint. Docs. 34-

35.

1 Although the findings and recommendations initially noted that plaintiffs’ complaint should be 

dismissed without leave to amend, that appears to be an inadvertent mistake given the findings 

and recommendations’ subsequent analysis and ultimate recommendation that leave to amend be 

granted. Id. at 1, 8.

Case 1:23-cv-01518-KES-CDB Document 40 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of 

this case. Defendant argues that leave to amend should be denied as further amendment would be 

futile. Doc. 32 at 2. However, the magistrate judge correctly noted that pro se pleadings are held 

to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers and that leave to amend should be freely 

given. Doc. 31 at 5, 8. As the magistrate judge found, it is appropriate to give plaintiffs an 

opportunity to amend their complaint to remedy the deficiencies identified in the findings and 

recommendations to the extent that plaintiffs can, in good faith, correct those deficiencies.

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and 

recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. 31), issued on August 21, 2024, are adopted 

in full;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 22) is GRANTED in part;

3. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and

4. Within 21 days of service of this order, plaintiffs may file either (a) a first amended 

complaint, or alternatively, (b) a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01518-KES-CDB Document 40 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 3