United States District Court, D. Oregon
B. Comstock Garrett Hemann Robertson P.C. Attorney for
A. Rohner IV Anglin Flewelling Rasmussen Campbell &
Trytten LLP Attorney for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
M. Thomas McCarthy & Holthus, LLP Attorney for Quality
Loan Service Corporation of Washington
Richard A. Uffelman Attorney for Aaron Reed LLC
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Judge Paul Papak issued a Findings & Recommendation
(“F&R”)  on October 16, 2017,
recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss  be
granted in part. The parties have timely filed objections
   to the F&R. The matter is now before the
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72(b). After reviewing the F&R, the
parties' briefs, the record in this case, and the
relevant law, the Court adopts the F&R in part with
modifications. The Court finds no basis to modify those
portions of the F&R to which the parties did not object.
detailed recitation of this case's factual background can
be found in the F&R and the Court will not repeat it
here. See F&R 2-6, ECF 28. Plaintiff brought
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, breach of
contract, unlawful foreclosure, violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C.
§§ 2601-2617, and the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices
Act (“UTPA”), Or. Rev. Stat. §§
646.605-646.656. Defendants are Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (collectively “Wells
Fargo”), Quality Loan Service Corp. of Washington
(“QLS”), and Aaron Reed LLC. Wells Fargo, joined
by QLS, moved to dismiss each of Plaintiff's claims
F&R recommended that the Court dismiss with leave to
amend Plaintiff's claims other than the UTPA claim.
Plaintiff, Wells Fargo, and QLS each separately filed
objections. Plaintiff objects to the recommended dismissal of
his wrongful foreclosure claim and claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief. See Pl.'s Objs., ECF 32.
Wells Fargo objects to the F&R, arguing that the UTPA
claim should be dismissed. See Wells Fargo's
Objs., ECF 33. Lastly, QLS objects, arguing that
Plaintiff's UTPA claim does not apply to it. See
QLS's Objs., ECF 35.
party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's
F&R, the district court must make a de novo
determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's
report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v.
Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.
2003) (en banc).
respect to Plaintiff's objections regarding his wrongful
foreclosure claim, the Court concludes that there is no basis
to modify the F&R. Accordingly, that claim is dismissed
with leave to amend. Similarly, as to Wells Fargo's
objections regarding Plaintiff's UTPA claim, the Court
has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de
novo and the relevant law and finds no errors in the
F&R. Therefore, Plaintiff's UTPA claim against Wells
Fargo is not dismissed. The Court, however, finds that it is
necessary to modify the F&R in two respects. First, the
Court agrees that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief should be dismissed; however, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief must, for reasons not addressed in the
F&R, be dismissed with prejudice. Second, The Court finds
Plaintiff's UTPA claim is inapplicable to QLS to the
extent that it is based on Or. Rev. Stat.
(“O.R.S.”) § 646.608(1)(u). Plaintiff's
UPTA claim otherwise continues as against QLS.
Claims for Declaratory ...