(PS) Nieto v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 22, 2022·No. 2:20-cv-00422·Unknown

Opinion

JESSE NIETO, Jr., No. 2:20-cv-00422-TLN-JDP Plaintiff, v. ORDER CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. et al., Defendants. On August 23, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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. (ECF No. 55.) No objections were filed. The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. /// /// Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 23, 2022 CECF No. 55) are ADOPTED in full; 2. This case is REMANDED sua sponte to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin; 3. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 46) is DENIED as moot; and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. DATED: September 21, 2022 7 /) “ ; / of HAA

United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PS) Nieto v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

(PS) Nieto v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. ((PS) Nieto v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)