Order and Opinion on Motion for Summary Judgement
Lewis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(4:23-cv-00934)
District Court, S.D. Texas, Judge Eskridge
SEP 20, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 26, 2024
The motion by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA, for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Dkt 27. The claim for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act is dismissed with prejudice. The claim as to breach of contract will proceed to trial.
1. Background
Plaintiff Shysa Lewis obtained a loan, which was ultimately transferred to Wells Fargo. She fell behind on her loan payments. See Dkt 27-1 at 4.
In May 2019, Wells Fargo offered Lewis what it calls a Flex Modification Trial Plan to provide a “temporary payment relief period that allows you to demonstrate that you can consistently manage the estimated modified mortgage payment.” Id at 37. The plan required her to make three monthly payments. See id at 32. Lewis failed to make the payments, and so Wells Fargo removed her from the program. See id at 4.
In February 2020, Wells Fargo again offered Lewis the chance to participate in this program. She failed to make the payments, and Wells Fargo again removed her from the program for lack of compliance.
See id at 4–5.
In May 2021, Wells Fargo offered Lewis a third chance to participate in this program. This plan required her to make three monthly payments in the amount of $3,472.13.
See id at 5.
The offer stated: “If you follow the terms of the trial period plan, your mortgage will be permanently modified. . . . If you do not contact [Wells Fargo] or send your first trial period plan payment by June 1, 2021, foreclosure proceedings may be started or continue.”
Id at 32.
This included three steps. First, the plan said Lewis “must do one of these” by June 1, 2021:
“Contact us by phone or in writing to let us know if you intend to accept this offer . . . OR Send your first trial period plan payment of $3,742.13 to accept this offer.”
Id at 34 (capitalization and emphasis original).
Second, she would then be required to make the three monthly “trial period plan payments” of $3,472.13. Id at 34–35 (emphasis original).
Third, she needed to sign and return a loan modification agreement, “which we will send you near the completions of the trial period plan.” Id at 35.
On May 29, 2021, Lewis emailed Wells Fargo “to confirm acceptance of the offer.”
Id at 46.
Three days later, she transferred the first payment in the amount of $3,471.13, which was one dollar short of the required amount.
See Dkt 31-6.
She then paid the remaining two monthly payments in the full amount of $3,472.16.
See Dkts 31-7 & 31-8.
On August 5, 2021, Wells Fargo notified Lewis by letter that she had been removed from the mortgage assistance review process because she “did not accept by satisfying the requirements of the trial offer”
Dkt 27-1 at 5.
The live pleading is the first amended complaint, which asserts causes of action for breach of contract (with alternative request for specific performance) and violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Dkt 21 at 10–27. Pending is a motion for summary judgment by Wells Fargo.
Dkt 27.
2. Legal standard
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to enter summary judgment when the movant establishes that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
The Fifth Circuit holds that a fact is material if its resolution in favor of one party might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing law.
Sossamon v Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F3d 316, 326 (5th Cir 2009) (citations omitted).
And it holds that a genuine dispute of material fact exists “when the ‘evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’”
Nola Spice Designs LLC v Haydel Enterprises Inc, 783 F3d 527, 536 (5th Cir 2015), quoting Anderson v Liberty Lobby Inc, 477 US 242, 248 (1986).
A court reviewing a motion for summary judgment must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Connors v Graves, 538 F3d 373, 376 (5th Cir 2008).
The moving party typically bears the entire burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Nola Spice, 783 F3d at 536 (citation omitted); see also Celotex Corp v Catrett, 477 US 317, 323 (1986).
But when a motion for summary judgment by a defendant presents a question on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to proffer summary judgment proof establishing an issue of material fact warranting trial.
Nola Spice, 783 F3d at 536 (citations omitted).
To meet this burden of proof, the evidence must be both competent and admissible at trial.
Bellard v Gautreaux, 675 F3d 454, 460 (5th Cir 2012) (citations omitted).
3. Analysis
Lewis failed in her response to defend her claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, thus abandoning it. That claim will be dismissed. But the claim for breach of contract will proceed.
a. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
The relevant implementing regulation under RESPA is what’s known as Regulation X. Among other things, it requires loan servicers to provide borrowers specific notice of the reasons for denial of a loan mitigation application.
See 12 CFR §1024.41(d) (detailing denial requirements).
Lewis alleges that Wells Fargo violated the regulation when it didn’t “specifically list the reasons as to Plaintiff’s denial of a permanent loan modification because it incorrectly stated that Plaintiff did not accept the TPP.”
Dkt 21 at ¶22.
Wells Fargo contends that “(1) RESPA only applies to an initial loss mitigation application . . . (2) there was no ‘denial’ of the application—Plaintiff instead approved and failed to perform all conditions, and (3) Wells Fargo gave Plaintiff a reasonable time to satisfy her requirements under the TPP offer and provided Plaintiff with the specific denial reason in August 2021.”
See Dkt 27 at 2.
Lewis didn’t respond in defense of her RESPA claim.
See Dkt 31.
It is thus treated as abandoned.
See Terry Black’s Barbeque, LLC v State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, 22 F4th 450, 459 (5th Cir 2022); In re Dallas Roadster, Ltd, 846 F3d 112, 126 (5th Cir 2017).
Summary judgment will enter in favor of Wells Fargo as to the RESPA claim.
b. Breach of contract
“In Texas, ‘[t]he essential elements of a breach of contract action are: (1) the existence of a valid contract; (2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach of the contract by the defendant; and (4) damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the breach.”
Smith International, Inc v Egle Group, LLC, 490 F3d 380, 387 (5th Cir 2007), quoting Valero Marketing & Supply Co v Kalama International, LLC, 51 SW3d 345, 351 (Tex App 2001).
An essential element of a valid, enforceable contract is thus “execution and delivery of the contract with intent that it be mutual and binding.” Huckaba v Ref-Chem, LP, 892 F3d 686, 689 (5th Cir 2018).
Wells Fargo brings challenge as to the elements of acceptance, performance, and damages.
None support summary judgment.
As to acceptance, Wells Fargo contends that Lewis had to timely send all three monthly payments of $3,742.16, and that she was $1 short on her first payment.
Dkts 27 at 8–10 & 31-6.
But the offer by its terms only required either a message of acceptance or payment of the first installment.
It’s undisputed that Lewis communicated her intent to accept via email.
Dkt 27-1 at 46.
That’s sufficient.
As to performance, Wells Fargo again relies on the $1 deficiency across three otherwise full payments, all of which were timely made.
Dkt 27 at 13.
Ignored is the concept of substantial performance, which means “performance of the essential elements of a contract, provided that the defects in performance do not prevent the parties from accomplishing the purpose of the contract.”
Matador Drilling Co, Inc v Post, 662 F2d 1190, 1195 (5th Cir 1981).
Substantial performance exists when “there has been no willful departure from the terms of the agreement and no omission in essential points and that the agreement has been honestly and faithfully performed in its material and substantial particulars and the only variance from the strict and literal performance consists of technical or unimportant omissions or details.”
Schweiger v USAA Federal Savings Bank, 2017 WL 6503660, *4 n 4 (WD Tex) (citation omitted).
Lewis testified that her failure to pay the $1 was an “unintentional mistake.”
Dkt 31-11 at 2.
And it’s at least debatable among reasonable minds that a failure to pay $1 out of the requisite amount of nearly $10,000 isn’t a willful departure from the agreement, and that Lewis as such honestly and faithfully performed in material part.
In short, whether the failure to pay $1 is a breach “so material as to render the contract unenforceable is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.”
Schweiger, 2017 WL 6503660 at *5.
As to damages, Wells Fargo argues that Lewis hasn’t suffered any because she hasn’t suffered foreclosure and can’t identify the specific modified loan terms that she was to receive upon completion of her Flex Modification Trial Plan.
Dkt 27 at 10.
Lewis contends that she suffered actual damages in the form of lost financial benefits from a modified loan agreement.
Dkt 31 at 15–16.
And while the exact terms of such a modified loan agreement were only estimated in the Wells Fargo offer letter, these estimations provide a basis from which to calculate damages.
See Dkt 27-1 at 36.
A genuine dispute of material fact thus exists on this issue.
Regardless, Lewis also seeks specific performance to reinstatement of the offer of a permanent loan modifi- cation.
Dkt 21 at ¶19; see also Dkt 31 at 11
(requesting “enforcement of the ‘option’ process that was agreed upon”).
Under Texas law, specific performance is an equitable remedy that may be awarded upon a breach of contract, with a required showing that there is (i) no adequate remedy at law, (ii) a readiness to perform, and (iii) performance of other material and contractual obligations by the party seeking specific performance.
Young v Ershick, 617 F Supp 3d 563, 594–95 (ED Tex 2022).
Lewis musters at least some evidence as to each point.
Summary judgment will be denied as to the claim for breach of contract.
4. Conclusion
The motion for summary judgment by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Dkt 27.
It is GRANTED with respect to the claim of violation of the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act. That claim is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is DENIED with respect to the claim of breach of contract.
Judge Charles Eskridge
Signed on September 20, 2024, at Houston, Texas.
Lewis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(4:23-cv-00934)
District Court, S.D. Texas, Judge Eskridge
MAR 14, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 18, 2023
Aug 7, SEP. 13, 2023
FEB 29, APR 4,
JUN 2 6 11,
JUL 16, 2024
ADR took 8 months. Mediation Failed. Now Jackson files for ‘unopposed’ extension of time.
SEP 10, 2024
Everything stayed since June w8’in’ on court order re dispositive motions which are fully briefed.
On Jan. 24, 2020, Harris County District Court entered a default judgment of foreclosure pertaining to IBC’s note, valued at around $126k at the time of judgment.
In a separate HOA lawsuit, there was an entry of sale, which was to occur on Feb. 1, 2022.
On Mar. 3, 2023, Jeff Jackson filed a stop foreclosure auction lawsuit against Wells Fargo, who hold a $417k note, receiving a TRO, but not TI. The lawsuit does not refer to this lawsuit acting as a stop to a 736-type sale, indeed it asserts the emergency need for TRO and TI.
The case would be removed by Locke Lord for Wells Fargo prior to the TI hearing.
The case then spent many months in ADR, and recently the proceedings restarted. The last docket entry is a reply to the motion for summary judgment by the Lewis’s which includes argument and exhibits pertaining to the loan modification trial.
There is a lis pendens filed separately (Doc. 8) by Jeffrey Jackson for the Lewis’s.
However, there’s no joint agreement either upon removal, during the ADR, or after resuming the lawsuit relief requesting injunctive relief, or, in the alternative an agreement to stave off any further attempts at non judicial foreclosure.
Order AND ~Util –
Case Stayed
AND ~Util –
Terminate Deadlines
JOINT MOTION TO STAY
Plaintiff Shysha Lewis (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) (collectively, the “Parties”) file this Joint Motion to Stay, requesting that the Court stay all remaining pretrial deadlines and continue trial until the Court rules on Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment.1
The Parties make this request as the outcome of the Motion for Summary Judgment could be case determinative, and the Parties wish to conserve resources that would otherwise be required to file a joint pretrial order, attend a final pretrial conference and/or docket call, and prepare for trial. In support of this Joint Motion to Stay, the Parties show the Court as follows:
I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING
Wells Fargo removed this suit from state court to this Court on March 14, 2023.2 The Court signed a Scheduling and Docket Control Order and scheduled docket call on September 17, 2024.3 The Court ordered the Parties to mediation and set other pretrial
1 See Doc. No. 27.
2 Doc. No. 1.
3 Doc. No. 13.
deadlines.4 In early February 2024, the Parties notified the Court that they were unable to reach a settlement in mediation, resulting in a declaration of an impasse by the mediator.5
Wells Fargo timely filed its Motion for Summary Judgment within the dispositive motion deadline.6 Plaintiff timely responded to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and Wells Fargo replied.7 Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment is pending.
The remaining pretrial deadlines include:
· 7/25/2024 – Deadline for Joint Pretrial Order and Motions in Limine.8
· 9/17/2024 – Docket Call.9
The Parties now jointly move to stay these deadlines and continue trial until the Court rules on Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
II. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. Legal Standard
This Joint Motion to Stay invokes consideration of Rules 6(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 6(b)(1)(A) states, “When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Rule 16(b)(4) authorizes a court to modify the scheduling order “only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” FED. R.
4 Doc. No. 13.
5 Doc. No. 28.
6 Doc. No. 27.
7 Doc. Nos. 29–32.
8 Doc. No. 13.
9 Doc. No. 13.
CIV. P. 16(b)(4). Taken together, Rules 6 and 16 require a showing of good cause before a court may modify a scheduling order.
B. Good Cause Supports Granting this Joint Motion to Stay
Good cause exists to stay the remaining pretrial deadlines and continue trial to preserve significant resources among the Parties and of this Court while awaiting a ruling on Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which could have a material impact on a trial on the merits. Indeed, the Parties cannot ascertain the issues that would be necessary for trial—if any—until the Court rules on Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment. As an initial matter, the Motion for Summary Judgment is potentially case dispositive, so it could obviate the n
eed for any further filings or actions by the Parties. But even if the Motion for Summary Judgment is not granted in total, the Parties need to know if they have to address at trial whether the Parties formed a valid and enforceable contract. In addition, the Parties need to know if they have to address at trial whether RESPA applies to subsequent loan modification applications. Thus, the Parties need to know if they have to prepare for trial at all and, if so, on what issues before they unnecessarily expend a considerable amount of time, money, and other resources.
The Court maintains broad discretion to stay proceedings and control its own docket for efficiency’s sake. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 683 (1997) (“[T]he District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket”); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for
litigants”); Sugartown United Pentecostal Church Inc. v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., No. 23- 30072, 2024 WL 62947, at *4 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2024) (per curiam) (“District courts have great discretion to enforce pretrial orders ”); Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 797,
790 (5th Cir. 1990) (acknowledging that courts are vested with “broad discretion to preserve the integrity and purpose of the pretrial order”). Since good cause exists here, the Parties respectfully request that the Court exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings and continue trial until it rules on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment because a stay would conserve the resources of the Court and the Parties.
No party opposes this Joint Motion to Stay. No party will be prejudiced by the granting of this Joint Motion to Stay. This Joint Motion to Stay is not filed for delay, but so that justice may be done in this matter.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Parties request that the Court stay all remaining pretrial deadlines and continue trial until the Court rules on Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment.10 The Parties also request that the Court award them all other relief, at law and in equity, to which they are justly entitled.
10 See Doc. No. 27.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Helen O. Turner
Robert T. Mowrey – Attorney-in-Charge
Texas Bar No. 14607500
S.D. Texas Bar No. 9529
rmowrey@lockelord.com
LOCKE LORD LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
Dallas, Texas 75201-6776
Telephone: (214) 740-8000
Facsimile: (214) 740-8800
B. David L. Foster
Texas Bar No. 24031555
S. D. Texas Bar No. 35961
dfoster@lockelord.com
LOCKE LORD LLP
300 Colorado Street, Suite 2100
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 305-4700
Facsimile: (512) 305-4800
Helen O. Turner
Texas Bar No. 24094229
S. D. Texas Bar No. 29424121
helen.turner@lockelord.com
LOCKE LORD LLP
600 Travis Street, Suite 2800
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (214) 226-1280
Facsimile: (713) 229-2501
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
-AND-
/s/ Jeffrey C. Jackson with permission
Jeffrey C. Jackson jeff@jjacksonllp.com
Jeffrey Jackson & Associates, PLLC
2500 E. TC Jester Blvd., Suite 285 Houston, Texas 77008
Telephone: (713) 861-8833
Facsimile: (713) 682-8866
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 6th day of June, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on the following counsel of record via ECF and/or email according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
We don’t see any injunctive relief or joint agreement not to foreclose in this federal case.
Response in Opposition to Motion (for Summary Judgment)
JOINT MEDIATION STATUS REPORT
Pursuant to Section 17(c) of the Court’s Procedures and the Scheduling and Docket Control Order (Doc. No. 13), Plaintiff Shysha Lewis (“Lewis”) and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) (collectively, the “Parties”) file this Joint Mediation Status report.
1. The Parties mediated this matter before Judge John Wooldridge on February 9, 2024, via Zoom in a scheduled half-day mediation session.
2. Lewis and her counsel appeared and participated in mediation. Wells Fargo appeared through its company representative and attorney and participated in mediation.
3. The Parties were unable to reach a settlement, and the mediator declared an impasse.
Respectfully submitted,
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:23-cv-00934
| Lewis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Assigned to: Judge Charles Eskridge
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal |
Date Filed: 03/14/2023 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Shysha Lewis | represented by | Charles Daniel Brooks Attorney at Law 3200 Southwest Freeway Ste 3200 Houston, TX 77027 713-403-4200 Email: dbrooks@fbfk.law TERMINATED: 01/25/2024 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJeffrey Craig Jackson Jeffrey Jackson & Associates, PLLC 2500 E TC Jester Blvd. Suite 285 Houston, TX 77008 713-861-8833 Fax: 713-682-8866 Email: jeff@jjacksonpllc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | represented by | Robert T Mowrey Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Ave Ste 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 214-740-8000 Fax: 214-740-8800 Email: rmowrey@lockelord.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin David Lee Foster Locke Lord LLP 300 Colorado Street Ste 2100 Austin, TX 78701 512-305-4751 Email: dfoster@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew Hogan Davis Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors 1717 Main Street Ste 5900 Dallas, TX 75201 214-653-4000 Email: mhd@brewerattorneys.com TERMINATED: 06/09/2023 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDVincent J. Hess Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Avenue Ste 2800 Dallas, TX 75201 214-740-8732 Email: vhess@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHelen Onome Turner Locke Lord LLP 600 Travis Street Ste 2800 Houston, TX 77002 713-226-1280 Fax: 713-229-2501 Email: helen.turner@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 06/01/2023 | 17 | NOTICE of Appearance by B. David L. Foster on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed. (Foster, Benjamin) (Entered: 06/01/2023) |
| 06/05/2023 | 18 | Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint by Shysha Lewis, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/26/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Her First Amended Complaint)(Brooks, Charles) (Entered: 06/05/2023) |
| 06/09/2023 | 19 | ORDER granting 16 Unopposed MOTION for Matthew H. Davis to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Matthew Hogan Davis terminated.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 06/09/2023) |
| 06/12/2023 | 20 | ORDER granting 18 Motion for Leave to File amended complaint.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2023) |
| 06/12/2023 | 21 | First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed by Shysha Lewis.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2023) |
| 06/22/2023 | 22 | First MOTION for Extension of Time Response by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed. Motion Docket Date 7/13/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order-Unopposed Motion for Extension for Response to First Amended Complaint)(Hess, Vincent) (Entered: 06/22/2023) |
| 07/03/2023 | 23 | ORDER granting 22 Motion for Extension of Time; Motion-related deadline set re: 22 First MOTION for Extension of Time Response. Response due by 07/12/2023.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 07/03/2023) |
| 07/12/2023 | 24 | ANSWER to 21 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed.(Turner, Helen) (Entered: 07/12/2023) |
| 01/18/2024 | 25 | Unopposed MOTION for Charles D. Brooks to Withdraw as Attorney by Shysha Lewis, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/8/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Withdraw)(Brooks, Charles) (Entered: 01/18/2024) |
| 01/25/2024 | 26 | ORDER granting 25 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Charles Daniel Brooks terminated.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(GabrielleLyons, 4) (Entered: 01/25/2024) |
| 02/06/2024 | 27 | MOTION for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed. Motion Docket Date 2/27/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (s) A – C, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment)(Turner, Helen) (Entered: 02/06/2024) |
| 02/12/2024 | 28 | Alternative Dispute Resolution Memorandum; case not settled, filed.(Turner, Helen) (Entered: 02/12/2024) |
| 02/26/2024 | 29 | Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment by Shysha Lewis, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/18/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment)(Jackson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/26/2024) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 02/29/2024 08:48:51 |
Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc.
Unopposed MOTION for Matthew H. Davis to Withdraw as Attorney by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed.
Motion Docket Date 6/15/2023.
(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Matthew H. Davis as Counsel)(Davis, Matthew) (Entered: 05/25/2023)
SCHEDULING and DOCKET CONTROL ORDER. Amended Pleadings due by 07/25/2023. Joinder of Parties due by 06/23/2023. Plaintiff Expert Report due by 01/23/2024. Deft Expert Report due by 02/22/2024. Discovery due by 04/09/2024. Mediation due by 06/25/2024. Dispositive Motion Filing due by 05/09/2024. Non-Dispositive Motion Filing due by 05/09/2024. Joint Pretrial Order due by 07/25/2024. Docket Call set for 09/17/2024 at 1:30 PM before Judge Charles Eskridge. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified. (JennelleGonzalez) (Entered: 4/13/2023) (Entered: 04/13/2023)
ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons.
Initial Conference set for 5/24/2023 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 9F before Judge Charles Eskridge
(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 04/11/2023)
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:23-cv-00934
| Lewis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Assigned to: Judge Charles Eskridge
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal |
Date Filed: 03/14/2023 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Shysha Lewis | represented by | Charles Daniel Brooks Jeffrey Jackson & Associates, PLLC 2500 E TC Jester Blvd Ste 285 Houston, TX 77008 713-861-8833 Fax: 713-682-8866 Email: danny@jjacksonllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJeffrey Craig Jackson Jeffrey Jackson & Associates, PLLC 2500 E TC Jester Blvd. Suite 285 Houston, TX 77008 713-861-8833 Fax: 713-682-8866 Email: jeff@jjacksonllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | represented by | Robert T Mowrey Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Ave Ste 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 214-740-8000 Fax: 214-740-8800 Email: rmowrey@lockelord.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew Hogan Davis Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Ave Ste 2800 Dallas, TX 75201 214-740-8315 Email: mdavis@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDVincent J Hess Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Ave Ste 2800 Dallas, TX 75201 214-740-8732 Email: vhess@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHelen Onome Turner Locke Lord LLP 600 Travis Street Ste 2800 Houston, TX 77002 713-226-1280 Fax: 713-229-2501 Email: helen.turner@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 04/11/2023 | 9 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 5/24/2023 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 9F before Judge Charles Eskridge(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 04/11/2023) |
| 04/11/2023 | 10 | Order in Removed Case. Statement due within ten days.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 04/11/2023) |
| 04/11/2023 | 11 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IN A REMOVED ACTION by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed.(Davis, Matthew) (Entered: 04/11/2023) |
| 04/11/2023 | 12 | STATEMENT of Information In a Removed Action re: 10 Order in Removed Case – FORM by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed.(Davis, Matthew) (Entered: 04/11/2023) |
| 04/13/2023 | 13 | SCHEDULING and DOCKET CONTROL ORDER. Amended Pleadings due by 07/25/2023. Joinder of Parties due by 06/23/2023. Plaintiff Expert Report due by 01/23/2024. Deft Expert Report due by 02/22/2024. Discovery due by 04/09/2024. Mediation due by 06/25/2024. Dispositive Motion Filing due by 05/09/2024. Non-Dispositive Motion Filing due by 05/09/2024. Joint Pretrial Order due by 07/25/2024. Docket Call set for 09/17/2024 at 1:30 PM before Judge Charles Eskridge. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified. (JennelleGonzalez) (Entered: 4/13/2023) (Entered: 04/13/2023) |
| 04/28/2023 | 14 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Shysha Lewis, filed.(Jackson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/28/2023) |
| 05/10/2023 | 15 | JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed.(Hess, Vincent) (Entered: 05/10/2023) |
| 05/25/2023 | 16 | Unopposed MOTION for Matthew H. Davis to Withdraw as Attorney by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed. Motion Docket Date 6/15/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Matthew H. Davis as Counsel)(Davis, Matthew) (Entered: 05/25/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 05/25/2023 13:16:50 |
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings – no order.
Defendant’s Notice to State Court of Removal
Rewind 2008: As Phoenix Explained to SCOTUS in 2022, Securitization is a Conflicting Mess https://t.co/VC714iIXIL
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) March 17, 2023
202313875 –
LEWIS, SHYSHA vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
MAR 3, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 13, 2023
Did you really grab all the relevant information from the real property records Danny, per your affidavit?
Bookmark for updates.
| 202066777- 7 Disposed (Final) |
FALL CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC vs. LEWIS, JACOBI ROMEL | 10/19/2020 | 215 | Civil | Foreclosure – Other | |
| 201967721- 7 Disposed (Final) |
INTERNATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE vs. LEWIS, JACOBI ROMEL |
9/18/2019 | 189 | Civil | Debt / Contract – Other |
Curry Town Lawyer Jeff Jackson loses in Judge Lauren Reeder’s Harris County Courtroom whilst representing Real Scumbag and Client Ramesh Kapur (now on appeal); https://t.co/2ltq4osxOo pic.twitter.com/EzCBwAy7Hz
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) March 12, 2023
Constitutional Crisis: Inconsistent Legal Standards in Houston Courts Threaten Homeowners’ Property
LIT’s Ongoing Investigations Shine a Light on Judicial Activism and Injustice in Houston Federal Court Against Targeted Pro Se Litigants
Wells Fargo Bank’s Budget Foreclosures in Texas: A Lone Legal Wolf Files Latest Suit in Federal Court
Low Fee Lawyers: Normally in Texas there is two, and up to 5 foreclosure mill lawyers appointed to represent lenders or mortgage servicers.
Walter Williams Wells Fargo Loan Mod Didn’t Count On Florida Foreclosure Deficiency Judgment
The Florida deficiency judgment from 2022 pre-dated the 2024 loan modification but now the judgment holder wants paid and seeks to foreclose.
