Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fontaine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

August 30, 2017

JULIE ELICE FONTAINE, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER

          MARCIA MORALES HOWARD UNITED SLATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40; Report), entered on July 26, 2017. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that Defendants' motions to dismiss this action, see Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 18; Chase's Motion) and Defendant PHH's Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof (Doc. 19; PHH's Motion), (collectively, Motions to Dismiss), be granted, and that Plaintiff's Motion to Comply with Order [35] Regarding M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g) [sic] (Doc. 37; Plaintiffs' Motion) be denied. See Report at 2, 26. On August 11, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an objection to the Report. See Plaintiff's Objection to the Honorable Court's Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff's Case [sic] (Doc. 41; Objection). On the same day, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, see Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to Portray and Assert Newly Discovered Evidence [sic] (Doc. 42; Amended Complaint), without seeking leave of Court, and Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs [sic] (Doc. 43; Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs). On August 22, 2017, Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) and PHH Mortgage Corporation (PHH) sought leave for an extension of time to respond to the Objection and Amended Complaint to September 1, 2017. See Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s and PHH Mortgage Corporation's Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 47; Motion for Extension). However, based on the Court's findings in this Order, the Motion for Extension is due to be denied as moot. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.

         The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

         As a preliminary matter, the Court will address the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs, which is signed by both James Thompson and Nancy James. The Court construes this motion as a notice of voluntary dismissal with respect to Thompson and James. Upon review of the docket, the Court notes that Defendants have neither served answers nor motions for summary judgment as to these Plaintiffs. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice with respect to Plaintiffs Thompson and James.

         Next the Court addresses the Report and Plaintiff Julie Elice Fontaine's Objection.[1]Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Report, the Court will overrule the Objection, and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge with respect to Plaintiff Julie Elice Fontaine.[2] As such, with respect to Plaintiff Julie Elice Fontaine, [3] the case is due to be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s and PHH Mortgage Corporation's Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 47) is DENIED as MOOT.
2. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the claims of James Thompson and Nancy James are DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff's Objection to the Honorable Court's Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff's Case (Doc. 41) is OVERRULED.
4. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40) with respect to Julie Elice Fontaine, as modified here, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
5. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 18) is GRANTED to the extent that the claims of Plaintiff Julie Elice Fontaine are DISMISSED with prejudice.
6. Defendant PHH's Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof (Doc. 19) is GRANTED to the extent that the claims of Plaintiff Julie Elice Fontaine are DISMISSED with prejudice.
7. Plaintiffs Motion to Comply with Order [35] Regarding M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g) [sic] (Doc. 37) is DENIED.
8. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.