As the Carmon Wrongful Foreclosure Case Arrives in Federal Court, Will the Court Seal the Records?

In their objections to the Court’s prior order modifying the scheduling order, Plaintiffs Patsy E. Carmon and Kimberlee Carmon (the “Carmons”) embedded a request for entry of default judgment.

See Dkt. 34 at 1.

The Carmons complain that Defendant Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC failed to timely serve its answer to the amended complaint, even though Carrington timely filed it with the Court.1

Dkt. 26 (answer filed January 18, 2024);

see also Dkt. 23 (extending answer deadline that date).

Carrington responds that its counsel inadvertently failed to send a copy of the answer to the Carmons

1 The rest of the Carmons’s brief raises allegations about the merits of their claims. Those contentions provide no basis for default judgment nor any other disposition at this stage.

and was alerted to the issue on January 31, 2024.

Dkt. 37 at 2.

Carrington then remedied its prior lack of service.

See id.

Under these circumstances, Carmons are not entitled to a default judgment.

“Because of the seriousness of a default judgment … federal courts should not be agnostic with respect to the entry of default judgments, which are ‘generally disfavored in the law’ and thus ‘should not be granted on the claim, without more, that the defendant had failed to meet a procedural requirement.’”

Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000)

(quoting Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co. v. Metal Trades Council, 726 F.2d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1984)).

Instead, courts also consider whether “the defendant acted expeditiously to correct the default.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Carrington had already appeared in this case, prevailing in part on its motion to dismiss the Carmons’ original claims.

See Dkt. 25 (adopting Dkt. 19).

Carrington also timely filed its answer to the amended complaint.

Dkt. 29.

And the lack of service was promptly rectified once Carrington realized its omission.

Default judgment is therefore inappropriate.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Carmons’ request for default judgment (Dkt. 34 at 1) be DENIED.

Signed on April 25, 2024, at Houston, Texas.

Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiffs Patsy E. Carmon and Kimberlee Carmon filed a motion requesting permission to e-file documents as pro se litigants and for access to the Court’s electronic filing portal—CM/ECF.

Dkt. 28.

Plaintiffs explain that they have not been receiving electronically filed documents in this case.

It is not customary to allow pro se parties to e-file.

Nor have Plaintiffs shown why an exception is warranted in their case.

To address their concerns about lack of timely notice, however, Plaintiffs may send a written notice (either by standard mail or email) stating that they consent to service of filings by email and providing their email address.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(F)

(authorizing service “by any other means that the person consented to in writing”).

If Plaintiffs provide such a notice to the Court, the Court will email

Plaintiffs copies of all further orders or notices that are docketed.

And if Plaintiffs provide the notice consenting to email service to counsel for Carrington Mortgage Services, then counsel must proceed to email its future filings to Plaintiffs.

Because consenting to email service provides an adequate remedy, Plaintiffs’ motion for permission to e-file is DENIED.

Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge

Signed on February 15, 2024, in Houston, TX

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-03534

Memorandum and Recommendations

Status Conference

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-03534

RECAP Actions

Notice of Resetting (FORM, noticing) – Civil – must be Judge Bennett, yep…rinse and repeat.

Motion to Remand Fully Briefed as at Dec. 16, 2022.

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-03534

RECAP Actions