Despicable Opposing Counsel’s Late Late Show Complainin’ About Legal Bandits Raises Skepticism

COMES NOW Newrez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing (fka Specialized Loan Servicing LLC) (“SLS”) and files its Emergency Motion to Rescind and Void TRO, Dismiss Case, and Request for Attorney Fees and would show as follows.

REVIEW AND CAUSE FOR RETROACTIVE VOIDANCE OF TRO

1.                  This is the fourth (4th) lawsuit filed by Mr. or Mr. Stevenson in the last 3 years to stop foreclosure.

2.                  Plaintiff Jacqueline Stevenson previously sued Defendant October 3, 2023 in Cause no. 2023-66338 in the 234th Judicial Court in Harris County.

Ex. A.

[LIT: BANDIT FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER ERICK “DELAROGUE” DELARUE AND DEFENDED BY MATT DURHAM (NATIONSTAR AKA MR COOPER) AND DESPICABLE DAMIAN ABREO]

That matter was removed to federal court cause no. 4:23-cv-04843 where on June 13, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed all claims with prejudice.

Ex. B

3.                  Prior to that, Plaintiff previously sued Defendant in Cause no. 2022-553478 September 1, 2022 in the 270th Court.

Ex. C.

[LIT: BANDIT FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER ROBERT NEWARK AND DESPICABLE DAMIAN ABREO OF HWA]

The matter was removed to federal court cause no. 4:22-cv-03212 where Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all her claims October 28, 2022 again with prejudice.

Ex. D.

[LIT: MEANWHILE, IN VIOLATION OF THE REMOVAL LAWS, IT WAS ALSO NOTICED AND SUBSEQUENTLY DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION BY ORDER OF HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT  JUDGE DEDRA DAVIS]

4.                  Plaintiff’s husband also filed his own prior litigation in cause no. 202178826-7 on December 3, 2021 in the 157th Court.

Ex. E.

[LIT: BANDIT FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER ROBERT NEWARK AND DESPICABLE DAMIAN ABREO OF HWA]

That matter was removed to federal court cause no. 4:22-cv-00045 Ross Stevenson v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC where it was dismissed by stipulation March 4, 2022. Ex. F.

5.                  Not only have the Stevensons filed four lawsuits, but Plaintiff filed a bad faith, frivolous bankruptcy case no. 23-30801 March 6, 2023 that dismissed April 21, 2023 for failure to file information. She did not comply with any of the duties of a Debtor in bankruptcy in that case and made no payments to the mortgage company or the trustee.

6.                  The Stevensons were posted for foreclosure October 1, 2024 and despite twice now previously dismissing all claims against Defendant, Plaintiff filed again the instant case and is again reciting the same claims she had made and previously dismissed with prejudice in two prior actions.

7.                  The Stevensons mortgage loan was due for September 1, 2018. They have not made a mortgage payment in six years.

8.                  The payoff quote as of October 1, 2024 was approximately $424,057.14. The county appraisal value is $370,096.00.

9.                  Plaintiff’s claims she intends to sell the house are false.

There is no equity in the property and Plaintiff has obtained a TRO from this court by fraud and by failing to disclose the multiple prior lawsuits or the fact that she previously dismissed all claims against the Defendant twice before – most recently June 2024.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

10.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata.

The doctrine of res judicata contemplates, at minimum, that courts not be required to adjudicate, nor defendants to address, successive actions arising out of the same transaction.

Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Miss., 701 F.2d 556, 563 (5th Cir. 1983).

11.              Res judicata bars claims that were previously litigated or could have been raised in an earlier suit.

Nislen v. City of Moss Point, 701 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 1983)

“it is black-letter law that res judicata, by contrast to narrower doctrines of issue preclusion, bars all claims that were or could have been advanced in support of the cause of action on the occasion of its former adjudication . . . not merely those that were adjudicated.”).

The four elements of res judicata are whether:

(1) the parties are identical or in privity;

(2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction;

(3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits;

and

(4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions.

Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005).

12.              The parties are identical, and the claims are the same recitation of claims she previously made.

13.              Res Judicata is an affirmative defense, and the Texas Supreme Court permits moving to dismiss a case based on affirmative defense.

Bethel v. Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651 (Tex.2020).

14.              Plaintiff is just refiling the same claims after dismissing such claims with prejudice twice before.

Wherefore, premises considered, Defendant prays the Court

i) retroactively annul the temporary restraining order in this case,

ii) Dismiss this case with prejudice,

iii) grant Defendant its attorney fees and costs in this matter in the amount of $975.00,

and

iv) for such further and other relief as the Court may deem just.

Respectfully submitted,
HUGHES WATTERS ASKANASE, LLP

By: /s/ Michael Weems

Michael L. Weems
Tex. Bar No. 20466273
TotalEnergies Tower
1201 Louisiana Street, 28th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 590-4222
mlw@hwa.com

Attorney for Defendant

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION (OCT. 31, 2023)

The case lasted 13 months before being DWOP’d.

REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT (Dec. 29, 2023)

REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT (JAN 6, 2022)