From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Fannie Mae

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 22, 2021
1:21-CV-0848 AWI HBK (E.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-CV-0848 AWI HBK

09-22-2021

APRIL PREMO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. FANNIE MAE, BANK OF AMERICA, FHFA, ADRIANA RODRIQUEZ, HUGH FRATER, BRIAN MOYNIHAN, AND MARK CALABRIA, Defendants


ORDER REFERRING PENDING MOTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE HELENA BARCH-KUCHTA

ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 HEARING DATE

Plaintiff has filed a complaint in which she alleges disability discrimination. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has filed an opposition entitled motion to not dismiss case. The Court finds that the pending motion should be referred to Magistrate Judge Helena Barch-Kuchta for entry Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The pending motion to dismiss and opposition entitled motion to not dismiss case is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Barch-Kuchta;

2. The September 27, 2021 hearing before the undersigned is VACATED; and

3. If Magistrate Judge Barch-Kuchta desires a hearing on the pending motion, Magistrate Judge Barch-Kuchta's Chambers will contact the parties and set a hearing date at Magistrate Judge Barch-Kuchta's convenience.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Williams v. Fannie Mae

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 22, 2021
1:21-CV-0848 AWI HBK (E.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2021)
Case details for

Williams v. Fannie Mae

Case Details

Full title:APRIL PREMO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. FANNIE MAE, BANK OF AMERICA, FHFA…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 22, 2021

Citations

1:21-CV-0848 AWI HBK (E.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2021)