Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01503-REB-PAC.
June 19, 2007
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs claims that defendants violated that anti-kickback provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a) and § 2607(b), the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, at COLO. REV.STAT. § 38-40-105, and committed common law fraud. On August 3, 2007, the action was referred to former United States Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Coan to conduct pretrial proceedings and to issue recommendations for rulings on dispositive motions. I temporarily assumed Judge Coan's caseload upon her retirement. The matter before the court at this time is Defendant Leo Shifrin's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [Doc. #54; filed May 16, 2007].
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 16, 2007, adding Leonid Shifrin and Matthew Green as defendants. After Defendant Shifrin filed his Motion to Dismiss, he filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment Amended on May 22, 2007 [Doc. #57]. Because the Amended Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment supersedes defendant Shifrin's original motion, it is
I note that the caption of Shifrin's Motion to Dismiss includes former defendants Mile High Mortgage Process, LLC, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A. Those parties were dismissed from this action on November 8, 2006 and December 15, 2006. See Doc. ## 21 and 28.
RECOMMENDED that Defendant Leo Shifrin's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [Doc. #54; filed May 16, 2007] be DENIED AS MOOT.
Within ten days after being served with a copy of the proposed findings and recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The district judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the proposed findings or specified recommendation to which objection is made. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the proposed findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Failure to make timely objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation may result in a waiver of de novo review of the recommendation by the district judge and may also waive the right to appeal from a judgment of the district court based on the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge.