UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
July 2, 2012
ERIC L. ANDERSON AND CHRISTINE T. ANDERSON, ET AL.,
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: U. S. District Judge Honorable Edward J. Lodge
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 5, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. 21.) Any party may challenge a magistrate judge's proposed recommendation regarding by filing written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court must then "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id. The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither side has filed objections to the report and recommendation. The Court has therefore reviewed the Report and Recommendation in light of the parties briefing on the Motion and finds that the Magistrate Judge identified the correct legal standards and properly applied those standards to the record. (Dkt. 21.)
Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Magistrate Judge Bush's Report and Recommendation is well founded in law and consistent with this Court's own view of the evidence in the record. Acting on the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bush, and this Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on June 5, 2012, (Dkt. 21), should be, and is hereby, INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety and THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 6) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows.
1) Plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations, and negligence are all dismissed without prejudice.
2) Plaintiffs' claims for quiet title, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief are not dismissed.
3) Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1, the parties shall meet and determine a joint litigation plan*fn1 and if the case is suitable for an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program such as arbitration, mediation*fn2 or judicial settlement conference.
4) On or before July 18, 2012, the parties shall file with the court the a joint litigation plan.