Akerman

Former Texas State Rep. Dawnna Dukes Enters a Shell Zone With Lawyer Stephen Mitchell

Dawnna Dukes, a former 12-term Texas lawmaker is in personal trouble again as she fights off foreclosure of her residence in Pflugerville, TX.

Dukes v. NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing

(1:22-cv-00413)

District Court, W.D. Texas (Pitman, R., Democrat)

MAY 2, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 6, 2022

Jan 24, 2023:

Notice of Attorney Appearance, namely Akerman Associate R. Martin Dungan, TX License Date: 11/04/2016 .

The case is still shrouded in secrecy. The pretrial conference ‘minutes’ fail to detail who attended for Dukes and the Mortgage Servicer and runs straight to the scheduling of the case.

When LIT attempted to purchase Doc. 13, PACER ADVISED; “You do not have permission to view this document.”

 

 

 

 

As stated, we believe Dukes does not have a lawyer and they are proceeding with the case as if she does. Why else would you need to HIDE a standard document from the public?

U.S. District Court [LIVE]
Western District of Texas (Austin)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:22-cv-00413-RP

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Dukes v. NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing
Assigned to: Judge Robert Pitman

Case in other court:  261st Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texa, D-1-GN-22-001577

Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 05/02/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/15/2022 10 ORDER Setting Initial Pretrial Conference for 9/21/2022 09:40 AM before Judge Robert Pitman. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (bot2) (Entered: 09/15/2022)
09/21/2022 11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert Pitman: Pretrial Conference held on 9/21/2022. Hearing to be reset. (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.) (Court Reporter Lily Reznik.)(jv2) (Entered: 09/22/2022)
09/22/2022 12 ORDER RESETTING Initial Pretrial Conference by telephone for 9/26/2022 at 10:00 AM before Judge Robert Pitman. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 09/22/2022)
09/26/2022 13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert Pitman: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 9/26/2022. Written order forthcoming. (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.) (Court Reporter Lily Reznik.)(jv2) (Entered: 09/27/2022)
09/27/2022 14 JOINT SCHEDULING ORDER: Bench Trial set for 7/24/2023 at 09:00 AM before Judge Robert Pitman, Consent to Trial by Magistrate due by 9/30/2022, ADR Report Deadline due by 10/31/2022, Amended Pleadings due by 10/31/2022, Discovery due by 2/28/2023, Joinder of Parties due by 10/31/2022, Dispositive Motions due by 3/24/2023. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 09/27/2022)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
10/10/2022 08:30:25

LIT thinks that Dukes lawyer ain’t representin’ her in the Federal case…he’s not filed anything, all filings are by the foreclosure mill.

U.S. District Court [LIVE]
Western District of Texas (Austin)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:22-cv-00413-RP

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Dukes v. NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing
Assigned to: Judge Robert Pitman

Case in other court:  261st Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texa, D-1-GN-22-001577

Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 05/02/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
08/09/2022 5 Order for Scheduling Recommendations/Proposed Scheduling Order. Scheduling recommendations/proposed scheduling order due to the Court within sixty (60) days after the appearance of any defendant. Scheduling Recommendations/Proposed Scheduling Order due by 8/24/2022. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 08/09/2022)
08/24/2022 6 Proposed Scheduling Order by NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing. (McInnis, Walter) (Entered: 08/24/2022)
08/24/2022 7 ATTACHMENT Certificate of Conference to 6 Scheduling Recommendations/Proposed Scheduling Order by NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing. (McInnis, Walter) (Entered: 08/24/2022)
08/25/2022 8 Order to File Joint Proposed Scheduling Order by 9/9/2022. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jv2) (Entered: 08/25/2022)
09/09/2022 9 Proposed Scheduling Order Agreed by NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing. (Townsend, C.) (Entered: 09/09/2022)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
09/14/2022 17:45:14

No movement since May and not even an Initial Conference ordered by the Magistrate. Is this preferential treatment to a former legislator by Judge Pitman’s courtroom?

As at May 29, 2022, it’s super quiet.

SHELLPOINT’S REMOVAL NOTICE

NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing (Shellpoint) removes the action Dawnna M. Dukes filed in state court pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1332 and 1441 as follows:

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. On April 5, 2022, Ms. Dukes filed suit in the 261st district court of Travis County, Texas in the case styled Dawnna M. Dukes v. NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, et al. and assigned case D-1-GN-22-001577.

(orig. pet., ex. 1.)

She sues to enjoin a scheduled April 5, 2022 trustee sale of the property located at 1103 Rutgers Drive, Pflugerville, Texas 78660.

(Id. at p. 3.)

She claims Shellpoint posted her property for sale without providing her notice of default, an opportunity to cure, and improperly accelerated the note.

(See Id.)

Basing on this allegation, Ms. Dukes claims Shellpoint breached the deed of trust (Id.)

She seeks monetary relief of not more than $250,000, a temporary restraining order, a temporary injunction enjoining Shellpoint from selling the property, and costs of suit.

(Id. at wherefore para. at ¶¶ 1-5.)

II. BASIS FOR DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

2. The court may exercise diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC § 1332(a) because the real parties in interest are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 84 (2005).

A. The real parties in interest are citizens of different states.

(i) Ms. Dukes and Shellpoint are citizens of different states.

3. Ms. Dukes is a Texas citizen.

Individuals are citizens of the state in which they are domiciled.

Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem’l Med. Ctr., 485 F.3d 793, 797-98 (5th Cir. 2007).

Ms. Dukes pleads she resides in Travis County, Texas.

(orig. pet. at p. 2, ex. 1.)

Her petition evidences no intent to leave the state.

See Preston, 485 F.3d at 797-98

(“A person’s state of domicile presumptively continues unless rebutted with sufficient evidence of change.”)

4. Shellpoint is a Delaware and New York citizen. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing is an assumed name of NewRez LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

The citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of each of its members.

Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008).

NewRez LLC has one member, Shellpoint Partners LLC. Shellpoint Partners LLC has two members, NRM Acquisition LLC and NRM Acquisition II LLC.

NRM Acquisition LLC and NRM Acquisition II LLC each have one member: New Residential Mortgage LLC.

New Residential Mortgage LLC has one member, New Residential Investment Corp.

A corporation is a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the state it maintains its principal place of business.

28 USC § 1332(c);

MidCap Media Fin. LLC v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2019).

New Residential Investment Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York.

White v. NewRez LLC, No. CV RDB- 20-1259, 2020 WL 4748539, at *5 n.3 (D. Md. Aug. 17, 2020).

(ii) The substitute trustees’ citizenships should be disregarded.

5. Ms. Dukes’ petition names a laundry list of substitute trustees identified in a notice setting a April 5, 2022 foreclosure sale:

David Ackel, Travis Kaddatz, Sara Edgington, Colette Mayers, Thomas Gilbraith, C. Jason Spence, Aarti Patel, Dylan Ruiz, Violate Nunez, Shawn Schiller, Ramiro Cuevas, Cary Corenblum, Joshua Sanders, Allena Litton, Matthew Hansen, Auction.com whose address is 1 Mauchly Irving, CA 92618 or Angela Zavala, Michelle Jones, Richard Zavala, Jr. or Sharlet Watts whose address is 14800 Landmark Blvd., Suite 850, Dallas, TX 75254.

(orig. pet. at p. 1-3, ex. 1.)

6. Even if each person identified above were a citizen of Texas, their presence does not destroy diversity jurisdiction because they are nominal parties and improperly joined.

7. A nominal party’s citizenship is disregarded in determining whether complete diversity exists; only real and substantial parties are considered.

Navarro Savs. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 460-61 (1980);

see also Corfield v. Dall. Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2003)

(“[A] federal court must disregard nominal or formal parties and rest jurisdiction only upon the citizenship of real parties to the controversy.”)

A party is “nominal” if in its absence, the court could “enter a final judgment consistent with equity and good conscience, which would not be in any way unfair or inequitable.”

Acosta v. Master Maint. & Constr. Inc., 452 F.3d 373, 379 (5th Cir. 2006).

A removing defendant meets its burden to show a non-removing defendant is a nominal party by showing “there is no possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action against the non-removing defendant[] in state court.”

Farias v. Bexar Cty. Bd. of Trs., 925 F.2d 866, 871 (5th Cir. 1991).

8. A “plaintiff’s joinder of formal or unnecessary parties cannot defeat diversity jurisdiction and prevent removal.”

Marsh v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 760 F. Supp. 2d 701, 710 (N.D. Tex. 2011)

(finding no reasonable basis for predicting the plaintiff’s claims against the substitute trustees would be successful in state court because only the rights of the banks were in dispute);

see also Eisenberg v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams., No. SA-11-CV-384-XR, 2011 WL 2636135, at *4 (W.D. Tex. July 5, 2011)

(finding substitute trustees named solely in that capacity were nominal parties to a suit to enjoin foreclosure, and noting section 51.007(e) of the Texas Property Code expressly provides dismissal of trustees does not prejudice a plaintiff’s right to seek injunctive relief).

9. The substitute trustees are nominal parties in this case.

Ms. Dukes neither alleges the substitute trustees committed any act or omission upon which a claim of damages may be maintained, nor that the substitute trustees have, or claims to have, any interest in the note, security instrument, or property which will be affected by the injunctive relief she requests.

(orig. pet. at p. 3-10, ex. 1.)

“Texas law recognizes that a trustee named solely in his or her capacity as trustee under a deed of trust or security instrument is not a necessary party in a suit to prevent a foreclosure.”

Zavala v. M & T Tr. Co., No. SA-11-CV-956-XR, 2011 WL 6739614, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2011).

Because the substitute trustees are nominal parties, their presence in this suit cannot defeat diversity.

See Corfield, 355 F.3d at 857

(“[A] federal court must disregard nominal or formal parties and rest jurisdiction only upon the citizenship of real parties to the controversy.”)

10. Even if the court determines the substitute trustees are more than a nominal party, their citizenship should be disregarded because they are improperly joined.

Improper joinder’s analysis is akin to the nominal party test and met where a removing defendant demonstrates the plaintiff’s inability to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse defendant in state court.

Larroquette v. Cardinal Health 200, Inc., 466 F.3d 373, 376 (5th Cir. 2006).

To make that determination, “[t]he court may conduct a [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6)-type analysis, looking initially at the allegations of the complaint to determine whether the complaint states a claim under state law against the in-state defendant.”

Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir. 2004);

see McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177, 183 n.6 (5th Cir. 2005)

(“A district court should ordinarily resolve [claims of] improper joinder by conducting a Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis”).

11. A defendant establishes improper joinder by showing there is no reasonable basis for predicting the plaintiff might be able to recover against a non-diverse defendant.

Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573.

This showing is made either when the plaintiff’s recovery against the non-diverse defendant is barred as a matter of law, or when the plaintiff would not produce sufficient evidence to sustain a finding necessary to recover against the non-diverse defendant.

See Hornbuckle v. State Farm Lloyds, 385 F.3d 538, 545 (5th Cir. 2004).

The required “reasonable basis” exists only if there is a “factual fit between the plaintiff[‘s] allegations and the pleaded theory of recovery.”

Griggs v. State Farm Lloyds, 181 F.3d 694, 701 (5th Cir. 1999).

A “reasonable basis” is not a merely hypothetical one. Id.

12. The Property Code provides a substitute trustee qualified immunity for any error made in good faith reliance upon information provided by the mortgagee or the mortgagee’s agents or attorneys.

Tex. Prop. Code § 51.007(f).

To state a claim against the substitute trustees, Ms. Dukes must plead substantive facts alleging a bad faith claim against them.

See Rojas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 571 F. App’x 274, 277 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)

(holding the plaintiff had no reasonable basis for recovery against the substitute trustee because she did “not provide any allegations that [the substitute trustee] was acting in bad faith.”);

see also R & L Inv. Prop., LLC v. Green, No. 3:12-CV- 4171-O, 2014 WL 1807618, at *8 (N.D. Tex. May 6, 2014)

(“[C]ourts have generally held that Section 51.007(f) imposes a substantive pleading element on a plaintiff that requires a plaintiff to allege bad faith on the part of the trustee.”)

13. Ms. Dukes does not identify any facts capable of supporting a conclusion she might be able to recover against the substitute trustees. (orig. pet. at p. 3-10, ex. 1.) Upon information and belief, Ms. Dukes did not serve the substitute trustees with the original petition and the court’s records reflect no returns to the substitute trustees on file.

(state court docket, ex. 4.)

The only vague and conclusory facts she alleges within the petition fail to attribute any acts, omissions or other wrongful conduct to the substitute trustees to prevail on any cause of action or obtain any relief.

(orig. pet. at p. 3-10, ex. 1.)

There is no plausible basis to conclude Ms. Dukes can recover on any claim against any of the substitute trustees identified in her petition.

B. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

14. To determine the amount in controversy, courts ordinarily look to the plaintiff’s state court petition.

Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).

When a defendant removes on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy may be established by the specific “good faith” sum demanded by the plaintiff in its state court petition.

28 USC § 1446(c)(2).

If the plaintiff claims a specific amount in the complaint, the amount stated “is itself dispositive of jurisdiction if the claim is apparently made in good faith.”

Rosa Bernal v. All State Vehicle and Property Ins., No. 7:22-cv-00015, 2022 1028086, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2022).

In her petition, Ms. Dukes “seeks monetary relief of $250,000 or less and non-monetary relief.” (orig. pet. at p. 2, ex. 1.)

The amount in controversy is satisfied.

15. As an alternative, “[i]n actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.”

Leininger v. Leininger, 705 F.2d 727, 729 (5th Cir. 1983).

Ms. Dukes sues to temporarily and permanently enjoin Shellpoint from exercising its right to foreclose its lien against the property.

(orig. pet. at p. 9-10, ex. 1.)

The object of this litigation is the property at 1103 Rutgers Drive, Pflugerville, Texas 78660 which is valued at $371,372 by the Travis County Appraisal District.

(appraisal dist. report, ex. 7);

see e.g., Hernandez v. Residential Accredit Loans Inc., Mortg. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007- QS3, No. H-18-0724, 2018 WL 4033785, *3 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2018)

(citing appraisal district report as evidence, held “[b]ecause plaintiffs . . . seek a declaration that the lien is void, and because the current market value of the property is $290,091.19 the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000.”).

The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the court may exercise diversity jurisdiction.

III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED

16. Removal is timely under 28 USC § 1446(b) because it is being filed within thirty days of defendant’s receipt of the petition, through service or otherwise.

The substitute trustees’ consent are not necessary to remove because they are not real parties in interest and, even if they were, they have not been sued.

See Eisenberg, 2011 WL 2636135, at *2

(“Nominal parties are not required to consent to removal under the unanimity rule”) (citing Acosta, 452 F.3d at 379)).

Venue is proper in this court because the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas embraces the place in which the state court action was pending.

28 USC § 1441(a).

Notice has been sent to the state court regarding this removal. Pursuant to section 1446(a), a true and correct copy of all of the process, pleadings, and orders on file in the state court action are attached as exhibits 1-7.

IV. CONCLUSION

The parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

This court may exercise diversity jurisdiction over this action.

Date: May 2, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Walter McInnis
C. Charles Townsend,
SBN: 24028053
So. Dist. Bar No. 1018722
charles.townsend@akerman.com

Walter McInnis,
SBN: 24046394
So. Dist. Bar No. 588724


Attorney in charge
walter.mcinnis@akerman.com
AKERMAN LLP
2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 3600
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: 214.720.4300
Facsimile: 214.981.9339

ATTORNEYS FOR SHELLPOINT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of this document was served on May 2, 2022 as follows:

VIA CM/ECF AND CERTIFIED MAIL / RRR NO. 9414 7266 9904 2186 4865 36
Stephen A. Mitchell,
smitchell@stevemitcehll-law.com
4408 Spicewood Springs Road,
Austin, Texas 78759
Telephone: 512.750.6961,
Facsimile: 512.692.2836

Plaintiff’s Counsel

/s/ Walter McInnis

Walter McInnis

Rep. Dawnna Dukes indicted on 15 charges, booked at county courthouse

MAR 7, 2017 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 6, 2022

State Rep. Dawnna Dukes turned herself in at the Travis County courthouse on Wednesday afternoon after a grand jury on Tuesday indicted her on 13 felony corruption charges and two misdemeanors.

Speaking outside the Blackwell-Thurman Criminal Justice Center before going in to stand for a mug shot and give her fingerprints, Dukes, D-Austin, said she would plead not guilty on all charges and will continue serving in the Texas House.

“I have been silent at the advice of my attorneys since February, and I am very relieved that my attorneys … are here today to begin the process of getting out the other side of the story,”

she told reporters.

“I will focus my time and my energy on the people of District 46 and their issues and concerns in the Texas House of Representatives.”

Dukes is charged with 13 felony counts of tampering with public records and two misdemeanor counts of abuse of official capacity.

The charges carry a combined maximum penalty of 28 years behind bars and $138,000 in fines, although defendants rarely receive maximum sentences.

Dukes is out on a $75,000 personal recognizance bond.

The indictments come a week after Dukes reneged on a plan to step down and took the oath of office for a 12th two-year term representing parts of North Austin, East Austin, Pflugerville and Manor.

The tampering with public records charges concern allegations that Dukes collected pay from the state in 2013 and 2014, while the Legislature wasn’t in session, for days that she didn’t travel to the Capitol.

House rules require lawmakers to work at the Capitol to be paid.

The American-Statesman in May reported that a former Dukes staffer had accused the legislator of filing requests for per diem payments for days that she never traveled to the Capitol and might not have worked at all.

Admitting error, prosecutors drop charges against Rep. Dawnna Dukes

Attorneys for state Rep. Dawnna Dukes, D-Austin, said Monday all criminal charges against her had been dropped.

Dukes was indicted by a grand jury on 13 felony charges and two misdemeanor charges related to abuse of public office.

OCT 23, 2017 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 6, 2022

Travis County prosecutors have dropped their criminal charges against state Rep. Dawnna Dukes, D-Austin, saying Monday that a felony case against the state lawmaker should never have been brought.

The announcement ends a months-long legal saga in which Dukes was accused of abusing public office after a grand jury indicted her on 13 felony charges and two misdemeanor charges earlier this year. But prosecutors have, over recent weeks, been forced to admit that their case against the Austin Democrat was based on flawed evidence.

In a Facebook post Monday night, Dukes thanked her legal team and supporters.

“It has been a long battle, but one in which I never doubted the outcome,” the post read in part.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

“Representative Dukes was innocent from day one,” said Dane Ball, an attorney for Dukes, in a statement. “We’re glad Representative Dukes can get back to serving her constituents without the distraction of these baseless charges.”

The felony case against Dukes claimed she had unlawfully tampered with a government record by falsifying entries on travel vouchers to obtain money for expenses she was not entitled to. But Travis County prosecutors were forced to put their felony case on hold last month after claiming a key witness in the case — who managed the official paperwork for the Texas House of Representatives — had changed his story.

Then, earlier this month, prosecutors were forced to drop one of the felony charges after acknowledging they had misread a date on Dukes’ cellphone, which formed a key piece of the evidence they had gathered against her.

Dukes also faced two misdemeanor charges of abuse of official capacity by a public servant. Those charges alleged that Dukes had used her legislative staff to work on the African American Community Heritage Festival and as a live-in nanny for her daughter.

Margaret Moore, the Travis County district attorney, said Monday she agreed to drop the misdemeanor charges on the condition that Dukes would repay the state $1,340 in order to reimburse the legislative staffer who’d taken care of Dukes’ daughter. Dukes also agreed to pay $500 for an outstanding fine owed to the Texas Ethics Commission and return $5,230 to her campaign account, which prosecutors said had been used for personal expenses.

In a statement, Moore said she would not have filed charges against Dukes had the statements from Texas House officials about travel reimbursement policy been clearer from the start.

“After a thorough examination of the evidence available to us, we have determined that we cannot continue the lawsuit,” Moore said.

Moore said her decision to drop the misdemeanor charges was in part an acknowledgment that prosecutors had bungled the case.

“In deciding how to resolve the two misdemeanors, I have taken into account the fact that the felony charges should not have been pursued,” she said. “Dismissing the misdemeanors for restitution, restoration of the campaign funds, and the paying of a fine to the Ethics Commission is a just result, given the amount of money involved and the nature of the offenses.”

In June, the 12-term lawmaker pleaded not guilty after declining an offer from prosecutors to drop the charges against her if she agreed to resign.

Former Judge and Lawyer J. Michael Luttig’s ‘Constitutional Crisis’ is a Diversion

The truth is the People do not trust the U.S. Government, full of lawyers and judges who ‘run the country’ and assert they are above the law.

There’s a Bunch of Federal Judges Departing from this Financial Services Case, But Not Allyson Ho

US District Court Judge Lynn Hughes Departs Involuntarily While One Unnamed 5th Cir. Judge recuses (we assume Jones) and Owen departs too.

Who Nominates Federal Judges and Prosecutors in Texas?

Senator Ted Cruz and Senator John Cornyn accept applications for judges and prosecutors in Texas – so good luck removing them from office.

U.S. District Court [LIVE]
Western District of Texas (Austin)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:22-cv-00413-RP

Alerts not yet Supported for this Docket

Dukes v. NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing
Assigned to: Judge Robert Pitman

Case in other court:  261st Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texa, D-1-GN-22-001577

Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 05/02/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Dawnna Dukes represented by Stephen A. Mitchell
Attorney at Law
6003 Upvalley Run
Austin, TX 78731
(512) 750-6961
Email: smitchell1@austin.rr.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing
also known as
Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing
represented by Walter L. McInnis
Akerman LLP
2001 Ross Avenue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 720-4300
Fax: 214/981-9339
Email: walter.mcinnis@akerman.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDC. Charles Townsend
Akerman LLP
2001 Ross Avenue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 720-4300
Fax: (214) 981-9339
Email: charles.townsend@akerman.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
05/02/2022 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing (Filing fee $402 receipt number 0542-15986443), filed by NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7)(McInnis, Walter) (Entered: 05/02/2022)
05/02/2022 2 RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing. (McInnis, Walter) (Entered: 05/02/2022)
05/03/2022 3 JS44 (Civil Cover Sheet) submitted by NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(McInnis, Walter) (Entered: 05/03/2022)
05/04/2022 4 ORDER that the removing party, if it has not already done so, shall within ten (10) days from the date of this order supplement the record with state court pleadings. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dl) (Entered: 05/04/2022)
Former Texas State Rep. Dawnna Dukes Enters a Shell Zone With Lawyer Stephen Mitchell
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Laws In Texas first started as an independent investigative blog about the Financial Crisis and how the Banks and Government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas, relying upon a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. That stated, LIT's Blog has grown tremendously during the three or so years it has been operating and our reach is now nationwide as we expand via our micro-blogs in various states. Join us as we strive to bring back justice and honor to our Judiciary and Government employees, paid for by Citizens.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-2023 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top