1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 TERRANCE MARSH, et al., ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-1451 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 v. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ) 14 FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ) (Docs. 34, 47) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16

17 Terrance Marsh and Gesele Marsh seek to hold Freedom Mortgage Corporation liable for 18 violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting inaccurate information to consumer reporting 19 agencies and failing to take required actions when notified of Plaintiffs’ disputes. (See Doc. 9.) 20 Defendant moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure, asserting the complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” under the 22 California Credit Reporting Agencies Act and FCRA. (Doc. 34 at 2, 3.) 23 The assigned magistrate judge observed that Defendant’s motion to dismiss referred to 24 allegations “contained entirely within Plaintiff’s initial complaint—not the operative amended 25 complaint.” (Doc. 47 at 2.) The magistrate judge noted the claim under the CCRAA was omitted from 26 the amended complaint, and Plaintiffs “offered additional allegations regarding their FCRA claim,” 27 which the Court screened prior to authorizing service of the amended complaint. (Id. at 3, citing Doc. 28 10 at 3-5.) Because Defendant’s motion was “aimed solely at the legal sufficiency of the allegations in 1 || the initial complaint, which ... [was] completely superseded by the amended complaint,” the magistr 2 || judge recommended the Court deny the motion. (dd. at 4.) 3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that an 4 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 47 at 4.) The Court advised the parties that the “failure to 5 || file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing 6 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants filed 7 || objections, and the time to do so has passed. 8 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 9 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 10 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: ll 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 28, 2025 (Doc. 47) are 12 ADOPTED in full. 13 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 34) is DENIED. 14 15 IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: _ February 26, 2025 ( LAW pA LU. wan 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28