Summary
rejecting borrower's same "surety" theory; servicer did not become surety for the note by entering into a contractual agreement under the trust to advance borrower's delinquent mortgage payments
Summary of this case from Rivera v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. (In re Rivera)Opinion
Case No. 2:13-cv-456-JDL
07-31-2014
RICHARD PULLIAM et al., Plaintiffs, v. PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST HOLDING I LLC et al. Defendants.
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge filed his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 14) with the court on June 10, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The plaintiffs filed their Objection to the Recommended Decision on June 24, 2014. (ECF No. 15). The defendant filed its Response to Plaintiff's Objection on July 8, 2014. (ECF No. 16).
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jon D. Levy
United States District Judge
Dated this 31st day of July, 2014.