Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02267/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02267-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael M. Baker
Defendant
Bank of America Corporation
Defendant
Bobbie Eddy
Plaintiff
Mark Eddy
Plaintiff
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
Defendant
Service Link, 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARK EDDY; BOBBIE EDDY, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION (As Trustee for Freddie 

Mac MultiClass Certificates Series 3450); 

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 

(As Parent to Bank of America, M.A., as 

Successor in Interest By Merger with 

Countrywide Bank, FSB); SERVICE 

LINK, LLC; MICHAEL M. BAKER, Esq.; 

Does 1-5, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2267-KJM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

On September 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiffs filed objections on 

September 25, 2019, and they were considered by the undersigned. 

 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 

Case 2:18-cv-02267-KJM-EFB Document 44 Filed 01/15/20 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 

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

The Findings and Recommendations filed September 11, 2019, are ADOPTED; 

1. Defendant Baker’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is granted, and plaintiffs’ claims 

against him are dismissed without leave to amend; 

2. Defendant BofA and FHLMCs’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is granted as to 

plaintiffs’ TILA and RESPA claims, and these claims are dismissed with leave to 

amend; 

3. Plaintiffs’ TILA claim against defendant Service Link are dismissed with leave to 

amend; 

4. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law 

claims; and 

5. Plaintiffs are granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint as provided in the magistrate judge’s September 11, 2019 findings and 

recommendations. 

DATED: January 14, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-02267-KJM-EFB Document 44 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 2