Debt Collector

Improperly Joined Party Allows for More Federal Protection for Foreclosure Mill Locke Lord

Ankus LLC has not raised a reasonable possibility that any claim could be maintained against USAA, and USAA has been improperly joined.

Ankus, L.L.C. v. PHH Mortgage Corp.

(4:22-cv-00355)

District Court, S.D. Texas

FEB 2, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: FEB 3, 2022

Memorandum and Order, Sep 15, 2022

Judge Sim Lake’s Order allows Ankus to proceed with Statute of Limitation (Expired) claims along with declaratory judgment and injunctive relief claims.

Judge Lake has a dig at Locke Lord’s chosen route, a motion to dismiss rather than summary judgment, which allowed Ankus claim re statute of limitations to proceed.

REPLY in Support of 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , filed by PHH Mortgage Corp.. (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 08/30/2022)

On Aug 12, Arthur E. Anthony Locke Lord to Withdraw as Attorney for PHH Mortgage Corp.

NOTICE of Appearance by Helen O. Turner and Matthew K. Hansen both of Locke Lord on behalf of PHH Mortgage Corp.

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00355

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Ankus, L.L.C. v. PHH Mortgage Corp. et al
Assigned to: Judge Sim Lake

Case in other court:  125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, TX, 21-83782

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 02/02/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
07/25/2022 27 ORDER – Granting 26 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss ; Pltf’s Response due by 8/9/2022 re: 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 07/25/2022)
08/09/2022 28 RESPONSE to 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Ankus, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint)(Schutza, Jerry) (Entered: 08/09/2022)
08/09/2022 29 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Ankus, L.L.C. filed by Ankus, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Schutza, Jerry) (Entered: 08/09/2022)
08/11/2022 30 Unopposed MOTION for Arthur E. Anthony to Withdraw as Attorney by PHH Mortgage Corp., filed. Motion Docket Date 9/1/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Anthony, Arthur) (Entered: 08/11/2022)
08/12/2022 31 ORDER – Granting 30 Unopposed MOTION for Arthur E. Anthony to Withdraw as Attorney for PHH Mortgage Corp…*** Attorney Arthur E Anthony terminated..(Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 08/12/2022)
08/12/2022 32 NOTICE of Appearance by Helen O. Turner and Matthew K. Hansen on behalf of PHH Mortgage Corp., filed. (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 08/12/2022)
08/16/2022 33 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time August 30, 2022 by PHH Mortgage Corp., filed. Motion Docket Date 9/6/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Turner, Helen) (Entered: 08/16/2022)
08/16/2022 34 ORDER – Granting 33 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time August 30, 2022 ; Deft’s Reply due by 8/30/2022 re: 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 08/16/2022)
08/30/2022 35 REPLY in Support of 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , filed by PHH Mortgage Corp.. (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 08/30/2022)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
09/14/2022 19:32:54

CLERKS NOTICE OF CANCELLATION – Initial Conference set for 6/3/2022 at 02:00 PM before Judge Sim Lake is CANCELED.

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00355

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Ankus, L.L.C. v. PHH Mortgage Corp. et al
Assigned to: Judge Sim Lake

Case in other court:  125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, TX, 21-83782

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 02/02/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
05/24/2022 17 JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by PHH Mortgage Corp., filed.(Griffith, Camille) (Entered: 05/24/2022)
05/25/2022 18 CLERKS NOTICE OF CANCELLATION – Initial Conference set for 6/3/2022 at 02:00 PM before Judge Sim Lake is CANCELED. Parties notified, filed. (sanderson, 4) (Entered: 05/25/2022)
05/25/2022 19 DOCKET CONTROL ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 7/29/2022. Joinder of Parties due by 7/29/2022. Pltf Expert Witness List/Reports due by 9/30/2022. Deft Expert Witness List/Reports due by 11/4/2022. Discovery due by 1/6/2023. Pretrial Motions/Motions in Limine due by 2/3/2023. Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/3/2023…*** Docket Call set for 3/10/2023 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 9B before Judge Sim Lake. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 05/25/2022)

USAA released as a party, leaving PHH Mortgage.

Apr 9, 2022: All briefing in relation to the remand completed on March 29, 2022. Now we wait for Judge Lake to rule.

Judge Sim Lake’s Order granting 60 day extension of time to answer First Amended Complaint, yet there is a Motion to Remand pending which could terminate the case in Federal Court by remanding back to the State Court.

PHH and USAA rely upon an erie guess by CA5, which conflicts with State Appellate Court(s).

Motion to Remand by Ankus

Camille Griffith, Locke Lord

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441, and 1446, Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”) removes this action from the 125th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, as follows:

I.

STATE COURT ACTION

1. On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff Ankus, L.L.C (“Plaintiff”), filed its Amended Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction (the “Petition”) in the 125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, in an action styled Ankus, L.L.C. v. PHH Mortgage Corp., Cause No. 2020-DCL-566 (the “State Court Action”).

2. In the State Court Action, Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive and other relief concerning the real property located at 9510 Gentry Shadows Lane, Houston, Texas 77396 (the “Property”).

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment to declare that it is the owner of the Property and remove any interest of Defendants PHH and USAA Federal Savings Bank (“USAA”) as a cloud on Plaintiff’s title.

3. Defendant PHH was served with a citation and a copy of Plaintiff’s Original Petition on January 3, 2022.

Therefore, this Notice of Removal is timely filed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(b).

4. PHH removes the State Court Action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

5. This action is properly removed to this Court, as the lawsuit is pending within the district and division. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441; 28 U.S.C. § 124(b)(4).

6. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, has original jurisdiction over this action based on diversity jurisdiction because Defendant is now, and was at the time this action commenced, diverse in citizenship from Plaintiff, and the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and Southern District of Texas Local Rule LR81, this Notice of Removal is accompanied by copies of the following materials:

Exhibit A Index of Matters Being Filed

Exhibit B Civil Cover Sheet

Exhibit C List of all counsel of record

Exhibit D Copy of the State Court Civil Docket Sheet

Exhibit E Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order

Exhibit F Clerk’s Certificate of Cash Deposit in Lieu of Injunction Bond

Exhibit G Order Granting TRO, Setting Bond, Setting Hearing

Exhibit H Return of Citation to PHH Mortgage

Exhibit I Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order

Exhibit J Return of Service of Citation to Registered Agent

Exhibit K Defendant’s Original Answer

Exhibit L Publically available filings

8. Simultaneously with the filing of this Notice of Removal, PHH is filing a copy of the Notice of Removal in the 125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

9. Where there is complete diversity among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, an action may be removed to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441(a). Complete diversity exists in this case because the properly joined defendant is not a citizen of the same state as Plaintiff. Additionally, this action involves an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

A. THERE IS COMPLETE DIVERSITY AMONG THE PARTIES

10. Plaintiff Ankus, L.L.C. is a limited liability company.

See Petition at 1. Because Plaintiff is a limited liability company, its citizenship, for diversity jurisdiction purposes, is determined by the citizenship of its members.

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

Based on publicly filed records, David R. Klein (“Klein”), a resident of Texas, is Plaintiff’s sole member.

See Ex. K.

Thus, Plaintiff’s citizenship for diversity jurisdiction is determined by Klein’s citizenship.

11. Defendant PHH is a corporation and is considered to be a citizen both of its state of incorporation and of its principal place of business.

See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 88-89 (2005); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

PHH is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Therefore, PHH is a citizen of New Jersey for diversity purposes.

See id.

12. USAA has also been named as a defendant in this case; however, its citizenship should be disregarded because it was improperly joined. The Fifth Circuit has established that improper joinder exists if there is:

(1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts; or (2) no possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action in state court against the defendant whose citizenship prevents removal.1

Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Cantor v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, 641 F. Supp. 2d 602, 606 (N.D. Tex. 2009); Shields v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 232 F. Supp. 2d 715, 719 (E.D. Tex. 2002).

A “mere theoretical possibility of recovery under local law” is insufficient and will not preclude a finding of improper joinder.

Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573 n.9; see also Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 328 (5th Cir. 2002).

13. The Petition fails to assert any claims against USAA or allege any facts or conduct which would give rise to a cause of action against USAA.

(See generally, the Petition).

Nowhere in the Petition does Plaintiff make any allegations against or seek recovery from USAA. In fact, the only specific reference Plaintiff makes to USAA is that USAA is the originating lender, which assigned the deed to PHH.

(Id. at 2).

Plaintiff makes no allegation, moreover, that USAA retains an interest in the subject property, given that purported to have assigned any such interest to PHH.

1              No actual fraud is apparent on the face of the record. As such, Defendant does not address this prong of improper joinder. However, Defendant reserves the right to amend the Notice of Removal if such facts are discovered at a later date. See e.g., Ayres v. Sears, 571 F. Supp. 2d 768, 772–73 (W.D. Tex. 2008).

See Petition at 2.

The proper defendant in a suit to remove a cloud, however, is not the originating lender, but rather the party who is allegedly clouding the title on the property at issue.

See, e.g., Tarrant Bank v. Miller, 833 S.W.2d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1992, pet. denied)

(“In order to maintain a suit to quiet title, there must be an assertion by the defendant of a claim to some interest adverse to plaintiff’s title; and the claim must be one that, if enforced, would interfere with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the property”)

(quoting Mauro v. Lavlies, 386 S.W.2d 825 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1964, no writ) (emphasis added)); Texan Dev. Co. v. Hodges, 237 S.W.2d 436, 439 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1951, no writ)

(“The object of the suit is . . . for the purpose of quieting the plaintiff’s title, and presupposes its validity, but that he is disquieted and his title disturbed by the alleged unconscientious claims and pretensions of the defendants. His purpose is to have those claims judicially declared to be unfounded.”) (emphasis added).

14. Plaintiff does not allege any specific facts or conduct which would give rise to a claim or cause of action against USAA.

Plaintiff does not even raise the “theoretical possibility” that any such claim could be maintained against USAA.2

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not raised a reasonable possibility that any claim—whether a suit to quiet title or otherwise—could be maintained against USAA, and USAA has been improperly joined.

15. Moreover, even if Plaintiff could establish a cause of action against USAA, USAA’s citizenship should be disregarded because it is, at most, a nominal party.

Removal is proper if there is diversity of citizenship among the parties in interest properly joined.

2              See De Bree v. Pac. Drilling Servs., Inc., No. CV H-18-4711, 2019 WL 2931574, at *5 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2019), report and recommendation adopted sub nom, De Bree v. Pac. Drilling, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-4711, 2019 WL 2913684 (S.D. Tex. July 8, 2019)

(denying motion to remand, in part, on grounds that the plaintiff’s complaint did not contain allegations which could support a claim against the non-diverse defendant);

see also Cantor, 641 F. Supp.2d at 611-612 (denying remand and disregarding the citizenship of the defendant trustee upon a finding that no reasonable basis existed for plaintiff’s recovery against the trustee).

Sun River Energy, Inc. v. Mirador Consulting Inc., No. 3:11-CV-1132-K, 2011 WL 3703229, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2011).

“’Parties in interest’ do not include formal or unnecessary parties, thus a plaintiff’s joinder of such parties . . . cannot prevent the removal of an action to federal court.”

Id.

“Whether a party is ‘nominal’ for removal purposes depends on ‘whether, in the absence of the [defendant], the Court can enter a final judgment consistent with equity and good conscience which would not be in any way unfair or inequitable to the plaintiff.’”

Acosta v. Master Maint. & Constr., Inc., 452 F.3d 373, 379 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Tri-Cities Newspapers, Inc. v. Tri-Cities P.P. &
A. Local 349, 427 F.2d 325, 327 (5th Cir. 1970) (alterations in original)).

Here, USAA’s presence as a party is not necessary in order to quiet title to the Property.

The Court will be able to enter a fair and equitable final judgment regarding the title to the Property in the absence of USAA.

See Acosta, 452 F.3d at 379.

Accordingly, USAA is a nominal party.

16. Because Plaintiff and PHH are citizens of different states, and because USAA’s citizenship should be disregarded for the reasons set forth herein, there is complete diversity in this case.

B. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

17. The amount-in-controversy element is also satisfied. Where a defendant can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy is greater than the jurisdictional amount, removal is proper.

See White v. FCI U.S.A., Inc., 319 F.3d 672, 675 (5th Cir. 2003); see also St. Paul Reins. Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 n.13 (5th Cir. 1998)

(“The test is whether it is more likely than not that the amount of the claim will exceed [the jurisdictional minimum].”).

The defendant can meet its burden if it is apparent from the face of the petition that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000 or, alternatively, if the defendant introduces other evidence to show that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000.

E.g., Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002); Greenberg, 134 F.3d at 1253.

“The amount in controversy is determined from the perspective of the plaintiff, and the proper measure is the benefit to the plaintiff, not the cost to the defendant.”

Berry v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. C-09-116, 2009 WL 2868224, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2009).

To determine the amount in controversy, a court may consider actual damages, exemplary damages, and attorney fees.

White, 319 F.3d at 675–76.

18. “In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.”

Farkas v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 737 F.3d 338, 341(5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)); Martinez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 777 F. Supp. 2d. 1039, 1044 (W.D. Tex. 2010).

Specifically, the Farkas Court held that:

“[i]n actions enjoining a lender from transferring property and preserving an individual’s ownership interest, it is the property itself that is the object of the litigation; the value of that property represents the amount in controversy.” Id.

(citing Garfinkle v. Wells Fargo Bank, 483 F.2d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1973)).

Thus, “[when . . . a right to property is called into question in its entirety, the value of the property controls the amount in controversy.’“

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Knox, No. 08-60887, 351 Fed. App’x 844, 848 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Waller v. Prof’l Ins. Corp., 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961)); see also Alsobrook v. GMAC Mortg., L.L.C., 541 Fed. App’x. 340, 342 n.2, (5th Cir. 2013); Copeland v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 11-51206, 485 Fed. App’x 8, 9 (5th Cir. 2012)

(relying on the value of the property to satisfy the amount in controversy in exercising diversity jurisdiction over appeal of foreclosure-related claims).

19. Because Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the amount in controversy is determined by the value of the Property.

See Knox, 351 Fed. App’x at 848; Turner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:12-CV-2701-M (BF), 2013 WL 2896883, at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 13, 2013).

Plaintiff alleges that the fair market value of the Property is $200,000.

See Petition at 4.

Thus, the value of the Property satisfies the amount in controversy requirement.

20. Because there is complete diversity among the parties and because the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446.

Therefore, removal is proper.

IV. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, PHH removes this action from the 125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, so that this Court may assume jurisdiction over the cause as provided by law.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Camille Griffith

Robert T. Mowrey
State Bar No. 14607500
rmowrey@lockelord.com

Arthur E. Anthony
State Bar No. 24001661
aanthony@lockelord.com

Camille Griffith
State Bar No. 24034761
camille.griffith@lockelord.com

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
Dallas, Texas 75201-6776
(214) 740-8000
(214) 740-8800 (facsimile)

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Foreclosure Scam Squad Series: Christian Con Artists Along with Known Bandit Lawyers

If you look at the release form by Christian Consultants of Texas, they deny being a debt relief agency. That legal disclaimer is false.

Rosalie Conner Lives On, As Her Estate Files Against PHH Mortgage Corporation

Dissatisfied with local counsel, PHH Mortgage have retained Bradley, who are flyin’ in foreclosure lawyer Graham Gerhardt from Alabama.

Texas Judges and Lawyers Pray Together at St. Thomas More Society of the Diocese of Dallas

A Divine Failure: The Society sponsors the annual Red Mass to invoke divine guidance and strength during the coming term of the Court.

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00355

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Ankus, L.L.C. v. PHH Mortgage Corp. et al
Assigned to: Judge Sim Lake

Case in other court:  125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, TX, 21-83782

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 02/02/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Ankus, L.L.C. represented by Jerry L. Schutza
815 Walker Street
Ste. 1453
Houston, TX 77002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
PHH Mortgage Corp. represented by Arthur E Anthony
Locke Lord LLP
2200 Ross Ave
Ste 2800
Dallas, TX 75201
214-740-8400
Fax: 214-740-8800
Email: aanthony@lockelord.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert 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
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCamille Denise Griffith
Locke Lord LLP
2200 Ross Ave
Suite #2800
Dallas, TX 75201
214-740-8490
Fax: 214-740-8800
Email: Camille.Griffith@lockelord.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
USAA Federal Savings Bank

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
02/02/2022 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0541-27698758) filed by PHH Mortgage Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Griffith, Camille) (Entered: 02/02/2022)
02/02/2022 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by PHH Mortgage Corp., filed.(Griffith, Camille) (Entered: 02/02/2022)
02/02/2022 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by PHH Mortgage Corp. identifying Ocwen Financial Corporation as Corporate Parent, filed.(Griffith, Camille) (Entered: 02/02/2022)
02/07/2022 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Arthur E. Anthony & Robert T. Mowrey on behalf of PHH Mortgage Corp., filed. (Anthony, Arthur) (Entered: 02/07/2022)

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00355

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Ankus, L.L.C. v. PHH Mortgage Corp. et al
Assigned to: Judge Sim Lake

Case in other court:  125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, TX, 21-83782

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 02/02/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Ankus, L.L.C. represented by Jerry L Schutza
Attorney at Law
815 Walker St
Ste 1453
Houston, TX 77002
713-963-0081
Email: schutzalaw@yahoo.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
PHH Mortgage Corp. represented by Arthur E Anthony
Locke Lord LLP
2200 Ross Ave
Ste 2800
Dallas, TX 75201
214-740-8400
Fax: 214-740-8800
Email: aanthony@lockelord.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert 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
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCamille Denise Griffith
Locke Lord LLP
2200 Ross Ave
Suite #2800
Dallas, TX 75201
214-740-8490
Fax: 214-740-8800
Email: Camille.Griffith@lockelord.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
USAA Federal Savings Bank represented by Marc Daniel Cabrera
Polsinelli PC
2950 N. Harwood
Suite 2100
Dallas, TX 75201
214-397-0030
Fax: 214-397-0033
Email: mcabrera@polsinelli.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDElizabeth Frances Hayes
Polsinelli PC
2950 Harwood Street
Suite 2100
Dallas, TX 75201
214-661-5511
Fax: 214-594-5571
Email: ehayes@polsinelli.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
02/02/2022 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0541-27698758) filed by PHH Mortgage Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Griffith, Camille) (Entered: 02/02/2022)
02/02/2022 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by PHH Mortgage Corp., filed.(Griffith, Camille) (Entered: 02/02/2022)
02/02/2022 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by PHH Mortgage Corp. identifying Ocwen Financial Corporation as Corporate Parent, filed.(Griffith, Camille) (Entered: 02/02/2022)
02/07/2022 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Arthur E. Anthony & Robert T. Mowrey on behalf of PHH Mortgage Corp., filed. (Anthony, Arthur) (Entered: 02/07/2022)
02/15/2022 5 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 6/3/2022 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9B before Judge Sim Lake. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 02/15/2022)
02/23/2022 6 MOTION to Remand by Ankus, L.L.C., filed. Motion Docket Date 3/16/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Schutza, Jerry) (Entered: 02/23/2022)
02/24/2022 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Marc D. Cabrera on behalf of USAA Federal Savings Bank, filed. (Cabrera, Marc) (Entered: 02/24/2022)
02/24/2022 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Hayes on behalf of USAA Federal Savings Bank, filed. (Hayes, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/24/2022)
02/25/2022 9 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Amended Complaint by USAA Federal Savings Bank, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/18/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hayes, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/25/2022)
02/25/2022 10 ORDER – Granting 9 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Amended Complaint ; Answer due for PHH Mortgage Corp. 4/25/2022; USAA Federal Savings Bank 4/25/2022. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 02/25/2022)
03/14/2022 11 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand by PHH Mortgage Corp., filed. Motion Docket Date 4/4/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Griffith, Camille) (Entered: 03/14/2022)
03/15/2022 12 ORDER GRANTING 11 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand Responses due by 4/1/2022.)(Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4) (Entered: 03/15/2022)
03/29/2022 13 RESPONSE in Opposition to 6 MOTION to Remand, filed by PHH Mortgage Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – Declaration of Derrick Raleigh)(Griffith, Camille) (Entered: 03/29/2022)
Improperly Joined Party Allows for More Federal Protection for Foreclosure Mill Locke Lord
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