Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-124 - Baker v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-124 - Baker v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.
January 30, 2017
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Presently pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 19) of Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition (Docket Entry No. 22), as well as two motions for leave to amend her complaint. See Docket Entry Nos. 32 and 34. As set out below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that: (i) the motion to dismiss (Docket No. 19) be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; (ii) Plaintiff's first motion (Docket Entry No. 32) for leave to amend be DENIED; and, (iii) Plaintiff's second motion (Docket Entry No. 34) for leave to amend be GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 1/30/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
March 2, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/2/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
March 3, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons discussed in the accompanying Memorandum, the court OVERRULES the defendant's Objections and ACCEPTS the R&R. Accordingly, the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended (Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED and the defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The plaintiff's claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E) is DISMISSED, but the plaintiff's claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) will be permitted to proceed. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 34-1) as a separate document. The matter remains referred to the magistrate judge for case management. Neither party objects to the recommendation that the plaintiff's first Motion for Leave (Doc. No. 32) be denied. The court therefore ACCEPTS the magistrate judge's recommendation and DENIES that motion.It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/2/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)