Marsh v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation

Opinion

TERRANCE MARSH, et al., ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-1451 JLT EPG ) Plaintiffs, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING v. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ) FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ) (Docs. 34, 47) ) Defendant. ) )

Terrance Marsh and Gesele Marsh seek to hold Freedom Mortgage Corporation liable for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting inaccurate information to consumer reporting agencies and failing to take required actions when notified of Plaintiffs’ disputes. (See Doc. 9.) Defendant moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting the complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” under the California Credit Reporting Agencies Act and FCRA. (Doc. 34 at 2, 3.) The assigned magistrate judge observed that Defendant’s motion to dismiss referred to allegations “contained entirely within Plaintiff’s initial complaint—not the operative amended complaint.” (Doc. 47 at 2.) The magistrate judge noted the claim under the CCRAA was omitted from the amended complaint, and Plaintiffs “offered additional allegations regarding their FCRA claim,” which the Court screened prior to authorizing service of the amended complaint. (Id. at 3, citing Doc. 10 at 3-5.) Because Defendant’s motion was “aimed solely at the legal sufficiency of the allegations in the initial complaint, which ... [was] completely superseded by the amended complaint,” the magistr judge recommended the Court deny the motion. (dd. at 4.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that an objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 47 at 4.) The Court advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: ll 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 28, 2025 (Doc. 47) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 34) is DENIED. Dated: _ February 26, 2025 ( LAW pA LU. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE