Bankers

LIT Foreclosure Tracker is Now Watchin’ Attorney Debra Innocenti’s Return as Placette, a Former BDF Hopkins Case

LIT’s now following Debra Innocenti-Placette as she returns to Federal Court armed with a new foreclosure defense attorney.

Debra Placette v. CitiMortgage Inc.

(5:21-cv-01130)

District Court, W.D. Texas

P.S. Debra’s a lawyer

P.P.S. Note she obtained a Dismissal Without Prejudice, just sayin’

NOV 12, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: NOV 22, 2021

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND JUDGMENT

 

Before the Court is Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. (Docket no. 8). After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 8) is GRANTED such that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Citimortgage, Inc. and Cenlar, FSB

are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

All relief not expressly granted herein in DENIED.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that remaining motions pending with the Court, if any, are Dismissed as Moot and this case is CLOSED.

It is so ORDERED.

 

SIGNED this 13th day of December, 2021.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendants, CITIMORTGAGE, Inc. and CENLAR FSB (collectively, “Defendants”), hereby remove the state court action described below to this Court pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446.

BACKGROUND

1. On November 2, 2021, Plaintiff Debra Placette aka Debra Innocenti (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant in the 224th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, styled Debra Placette aka Debra Innocenti vs. CITIMORTGAGE INC. and CENLAR FSB, bearing Cause No. 2021CI22956 (the “Complaint”).

2. Defendants have not been served with process. This removal is timely because this Notice is being filed within 30 days of service on Defendants.1

DIVERSITY JURISDICTION EXISTS OVER THIS ACTION

3. This court has original jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), as amended, which provides in pertinent part that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . (1) citizens of different States.”2

1 See 28 U.S.C. 1446.
2 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

A. The Parties Are Diverse

4. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas based on Plaintiff’s domicile, as Plaintiff resides in Texas.3

5. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of the state in which it was incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business.4

6. CITIMORTGAGE, Inc. is a New York corporation with a principal place of business in Saint Charles, Missouri. Therefore, Defendant CITIMORTGAGE, Inc. is not a citizen of the State of Texas.

7. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a federal savings association shall be considered a citizen of the state in which it has its home office.5

8. CENLAR FSB is a federal savings bank whose home office is in Ewing, New Jersey. Therefore, Defendant CENLAR FSB is not a citizen of the State of Texas.

9. As such, there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.

B. The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000

10. The amount in controversy with respect to Plaintiff’s claims exceeds $75,000.6

11. Here, Plaintiff has affirmatively pleaded for “monetary relief up to $200,000.00” and explicitly claimed that “the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.”7

12. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit has held that a removing party may establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence in either one of two ways: (1) by demonstrating that is it “facially apparent” from the petition that the claim likely exceeds $75,000; or (2) by

3 See Complaint ¶ 2; Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48, 109 (1989) (“For adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one’s intent to remain there.”).

4 Tewari De-Ox Sys., Inc. v. Mountain States/Rosen Liab. Corp., 757 F.3d 481, 483 (5th Cir. 2014).

5 12 USC §1464(x)

6 See U.S.C. § 1332(a) and Complaint ¶ 5.

7 See Complaint ¶ 3, 5.

setting forth facts that support the requisite finding.8 In this context, district courts are permitted to conduct a “reasonable and common-sense analysis of the allegations in the plaintiff’s petition.”9

13. Among other claims, Plaintiff seeks an injunction to prevent a foreclosure sale.10 When a borrower seeks an injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale of a property, then the amount in controversy is the value of the property at issue. As the Fifth Circuit has routinely held.

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. The purpose of the injunctive and declaratory relief, to stop the foreclosure sale of the properties by [Lenders], establishes the properties as the object of the present litigation.

As this court has explained, the amount in controversy, in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief, is the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented. Borrowers’ claimed injury was the potential loss of use and ownership of the properties.

In 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.11

Even when the borrower asserts a lesser amount in controversy than the value of the property, the actual amount in controversy when a borrower sues to obtain an injunction to prevent foreclosure is the value of the property to be sold.12 In this case, Plaintiff seeks an injunction to prevent the sale of a property valued at $219,350.00.13

The amount in controversy for the application for injunctive relief is at least $219,350.00 and far exceeds the minimum threshold for removal.

8 Allen v. R.H. Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995).

9 Mosely v. Wal–Mart Stores Texas LLC, 2011 WL 1532386, at *3 (N.D. Tex. April 21, 2011) (“this is one of those cases where the application of common sense and logic must prevail; otherwise an absurd result occurs”); Allen, 63 F.3d 1335 (“common sense” may guide a court’s analysis).

10 Complaint ¶ 16, 27.

11 Farkas v. GMAC Mortg., L.L.C., 737 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added). 12 Buttelman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 5:11-CV-00654-XR, 2011 WL 5155919, at *3–4 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2011).

13 See Bexar County Tax Appraisal attached as “Exhibit D.” It is appropriate for the Court to take judicial notice of the Bexar County Tax Appraisal because it is a public record and the information it provides is readily ascertainable and relevant to the matter at hand. See Funk v. Stryker, 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011).

VENUE

14. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) because this district and division embrace the place in which the removed action has been pending.

NOTICE

15. Defendant has provided written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal to all parties in this action and are filing a copy of this Notice of Removal with the clerk of the state court where the action is pending pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(d).

DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN NOTICE OF REMOVAL

16. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following documents are attached to this Notice.

Exhibit A – Index of Matters Being Filed

Exhibit B – Index of State Court File14

Exhibit C – List of Counsel of Record

Exhibit D – Bexar County Appraisal District Record

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants CITIMORTGAGE, Inc. and CENLAR FSB pray that this Court take jurisdiction of this action and issue all necessary orders and process to remove this action from the Judicial District Court for Bexar County, Texas to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.

14 Defendants have requested the remaining documents from the state court and will supplement when they are received. The Complaint is attached.

Respectfully submitted,

HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP

By: /s/ Sabrina A. Neff

Sabrina A. Neff TBN# 24065813
600 Travis St., Suite 2350
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 647-6800 – Telephone
(713) 647-6884 – Facsimile
sabrina.neff@huschblackwell.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and CENLAR FSB
OF COUNSEL

HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP
600 Travis St., Suite 2350
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 647-6800 – Telephone
(713) 647-6884 – Facsimile

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal has been served upon the following on this the 15th day of November 2021:

Brian A. Marks Via Facsimile: 210-941-0547
THE LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN A. MARKS, PLLC
2318 NW Military Hwy Suite 104
San Antonio, Texas 78231
Counsel for Plaintiff
By: /s/ Sabrina A. Neff
Sabrina A. Neff

ORDER SETTING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

NOV 29, 2021| REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 3, 2021

Before the Court is the above-styled and numbered cause of action, which was referred to the undersigned on November 19, 2021, for all pretrial proceedings [#6].

The record reflects that Defendants removed this case from state court on November 15, 2021, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

After removal, the District Court ordered the parties to file their proposed scheduling recommendations on or before January 14, 2022 [#10].

The Court will therefore set this case for its standard initial pretrial conference and order the parties to file their joint Rule 26(f) report.

Finally, the Court reminds Defendants of their obligation to file an answer that complies with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within the deadlines set forth in Rule 81(c)(2).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this case is set for an Initial Pretrial Conference at 1:30 p.m. on January 25, 2022. All parties are required to appear by Zoom for the conference.

The information to join the hearing is as follows:

Join ZoomGov Meeting:

https://txwd-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/16126729723

Meeting ID:

161 2672 9723

If there are questions regarding the Zoom appearance, the parties should contact Valeria Sandoval, Courtroom Deputy, at txwdml_chambers_sa_judgechestney@txwd.uscourts.gov.

Because earlier hearings in other cases may be in progress at the time attorneys log-in for their scheduled hearing, attorneys may be required to wait in the Zoom “waiting room” until the Courtroom Deputy addresses them. Parties should review the July 15, 2020 Standing Order Regarding Telephone or Video Teleconference Hearings, which is available upon request from the Courtroom Deputy and on the Court’s website.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties confer in the manner required by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; further, pursuant to Local Rule CV-16 the parties should submit their Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan in a form that substantially conforms with Appendix N of the Local Rules and that answers the following questions no later than January 14, 2022.

1. Are there any outstanding jurisdictional issues? For removed cases based on diversity jurisdiction, do the parties agree that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal? If not, each party should state its position on the amount in controversy.

2. Are there any unserved parties? If more than 90 days have passed since the filing of the Complaint or petition, should these unserved parties be dismissed?

3. What are the causes of action, defenses, and counterclaims in this case? What are the elements of the cause(s) of action, defenses, and counterclaims pled?

4. Are there any agreements or stipulations that can be made about any facts in this case or any element in the cause(s) of action?

5. State the parties’ views and proposals on all items identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3).

6. What, if any, discovery has been completed? What discovery remains to be done? Have the parties considered conducting discovery in phases?

7. What, if any, discovery disputes exist?

8. Have the parties discussed the desirability of filing a proposed order pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502?

9. Have the parties discussed mediation?

During their conference, the parties should also address whether a protective order is required, and whether the protective order in Appendix H-1 (to govern standard cases) or Appendix H-2 (to govern complex cases) of this Court’s Local Rules is appropriate.

The Court will address the substance of the parties’ joint report and discovery plan at the Initial Pretrial Conference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties submit a proposed scheduling order as directed by the District Court in its Order dated November 19, 2021 [4] on or before January 14, 2022.

The Court will discuss with the parties any proposed changes to the Court’s standard scheduling order based on the unique circumstances of this case at the Initial Pretrial Conference.

SIGNED this 29th day of November, 2021.

ELIZABETH S. (“BETSY”) CHESTNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND JUDGMENT

DEC 13, 2021| REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 13, 2021

Before the Court is Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. (Docket no. 8). After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 8) is GRANTED such that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Citimortgage, Inc. and Cenlar, FSB are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

All relief not expressly granted herein in DENIED.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that remaining motions pending with the Court, if any, are Dismissed as Moot and this case is CLOSED.

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

13 DEC. 2021

Defendants, CITIMORTGAGE, Inc. (“CitiMortgage”) and CENLAR FSB (“Cenlar”) (collectively, “Defendants”), respectfully move for the entry of an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Original Petition, Application for Temporary Restraining Order, and Application for Temporary Injunction without prejudice.

1. Defendants filed a notice of removal, removing this case from state court to this Court. (D.E. 1).

2. After serving Plaintiff with the notice of removal, Plaintiff informed Defendants that he had nonsuited the state court case a few hours before the notice of removal was filed. A true and correct copy of the Nonsuit is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. Because the Nonsuit was effective upon filing, there was no active case to remove to federal court.

4. The undersigned has conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding this motion and Plaintiff is unopposed. Plaintiff’s counsel has applied for admission in the Western District but the application is still pending; therefore, this dismissal is being sought as an unopposed motion rather than as a joint stipulation of dismissal.

5. Defendants request that this case be dismissed without prejudice and closed.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants, CITIMORTGAGE, Inc. and CENLAR FSB, respectfully request that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice, and grant any other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Date: December 13, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Sabrina A. Neff
Sabrina A. Neff
TBN# 24065813

HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP
600 Travis Street, Suite 2350
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 647-6800 – Telephone
(713) 647-6884 – Facsimile
sabrina.neff@huschblackwell.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and CENLAR FSB

 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned certifies that she conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, Brian Marks, via email on December 8, 2021 and via teleconference on December 13, 2021 regarding the relief requested herein. Plaintiff is unopposed.

By: /s/ Sabrina A. Neff
Sabrina A. Neff

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice has been served upon the following on this 13th day of December, 2021:

Brian A. Marks
Via ECF:
bamlawtx@gmail.com
THE LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN A. MARKS, PLLC
2318 NW Military Hwy
San Antonio, Texas 78231

Counsel for Plaintiffs
By: /s/ Sabrina A. Neff
Sabrina A. Neff

Innocenti v. Cenlar FSB

MAR 24, 2020 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: NOV 22, 2021

BDF Hopkins Motion to Dismiss

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

The matter before the Court is Defendant Cenlar FSB’s (“Cenlar”) Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 4.) Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After careful consideration of the memorandum in support of the motion, the Court, for the reasons that follow, GRANTS Cenlar’s Motion to Dismiss.

BACKGROUND

In connection with the purchase of property located at 238 Pinewood Lane, San Antonio, Texas 78216 (“the Property”), Plaintiff Debra L. Innocenti (“Plaintiff”) executed a Note secured by a Deed of Trust on the Property. (Dkt. # 1-1 at 3.) Cenlar is the current mortgagee and servicer on the Deed of Trust. (Id.)

Plaintiff admits to defaulting on the Note, and concedes the Property was noticed for foreclosure sale on February 4, 2020. (Id.)

On February 3, 2020, the day prior to the scheduled foreclosure sale, Plaintiff filed the instant suit in the 285th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, seeking to prevent foreclosure of the Property. (Dkt. # 1-1.) Plaintiff’s petition alleges a claim for breach of contract and seeks injunctive relief. (Id.)

On February 28, 2020, Cenlar removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. # 1.) On March 4, 2020, Cenlar filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. (Dkt. # 4.) Although represented by counsel, Plaintiff did not file a response and the time to do so has now passed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In analyzing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court “accept[s] ‘all well pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’” United States ex rel. Vavra v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 727 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)).

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s petition alleges that Cenlar breached its contractual obligations under the Deed of Trust by sending a Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale and later sending a monthly mortgage statement. (Dkt. # 1-1 at 3–4.)

According to Plaintiff, because Cenlar sent her the subsequent statement demanding less than the accelerated unpaid principal balance, Cenlar abandoned the Notice of Sale. (Id.) Plaintiff also contends that Cenlar is required to provide her with at least 30 days to cure any default. (Id.) Given these events, Plaintiff contends that Cenlar is now in breach of contract. (Id.)

Cenlar moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on the basis that the petition fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. (Dkt. # 4.) Cenlar argues that Plaintiff herself has admitted she is in default on the Note. (Id.)

Cenlar also contends that Plaintiff alleges no damages, but she continues to reside in the Property without making payments on the loan agreement. (Id.)

A. Breach of Contract

In Texas, a plaintiff must establish the following essential elements of a breach of contract claim: “(1) the existence of a valid contract; (2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach of the contract by defendant; and (4) damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the breach.” Smith Int’l,Inc. v. Egle Grp., LLC, 490 F.3d 380, 387 (5th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted).

To sustain a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must typically “identify the specific provision in the contract that was breached” and cannot rely on general allegations. Seeberger v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. EP-14-CV-366-KC, 2015 WL 9200878, at *17 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2015) (citing Watson v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 814 F. Supp. 2d 726, 730 (E.D. Tex. 2011)).

Here, Plaintiff admits to being in default under the loan agreement.

Given this, Plaintiff lacks an essential element to her breach of contract claim. See Metcalf v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 2012 WL 2399369, at *10 (N.D. Tex. June 26, 2012); Owens v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL 912721, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2012); Lewis v. Bank of Am., N.A., 3434 F.3d 540, 544–45 (5th Cir. 2003). Texas law is clear that where, as here, a plaintiff is in default on a contract due to her own failure to perform, that plaintiff may not assert a claim for breach of a contract. E.g., Juarez v. Wells Fargo, No. 5:17-cv-00756-FB-RBF, 2018 WL 835211 at *4 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2018), adopted by 2018 WL 1895549 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2018) (“Having failed to perform his obligations pursuant to the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust, it is difficult (perhaps even impossible) to see how Juarez could ever prevail on a breach of contract claim of the type he describes.” (citing Vera v. Bank of Am., N.A., 569 F. App’x. 349, 352 (5th Cir. 2014));

Villarreal v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 814 F.3d 763, 767 (5th Cir. 2016 (affirming trial court’s dismissal of breach of contract claim because borrower was in default on the mortgage and “failed to allege any facts showing her own performance” under the loan contract). Plaintiff has not pled that she performed, or tendered performance, under the Loan.

Plaintiff has also failed to allege that any such breach caused her damages, nor that it is continuing to cause any injury. (See Dkt. # 1-1.)

Regardless, since Plaintiff concedes she was behind on payments, she has not alleged sufficient facts that Cenlar was the cause of her damages. See, e.g., Seeberger v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. EP-14-CV-366-KC, 2015 WL 9200878, at *17 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2015) (W.D. Tex. 2015). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege a claim for breach of contract.

B. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief also fails. To obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other things, a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim. See Harris Cnty. v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., 177 F.3d 306, 312 (5th Cir. 1999). Because Plaintiff has not pled any viable cause of action, she has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and her claim for injunctive relief will also be dismissed. See, e.g., Suarez v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-664-DAE, 2015 WL 7076674, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2015); Rodriguez v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. SA-12-CV-905-DAE, 2013 WL 1773670, at *13 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2013).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Cenlar’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 4). Because allowing Plaintiff leave to amend her claims would be futile, the Court will DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims.

The Clerk’s office is instructed to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE the CASE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: San Antonio, Texas, March 22, 2020.

DAVID ALAN ERZA
SENIOR US DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. District Court [LIVE]
Western District of Texas (San Antonio)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:21-cv-01130-FB-ESC

Debra Placette v. CitiMortgage Inc., et al
Assigned to: Judge Fred Biery
Referred to: Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney

Case in other court:  2021CI22956

Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal – Foreclosure

Date Filed: 11/15/2021
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Debra Placette
also known as
Debra Innocenti
represented by Brian Marks
The Law Office of Brian A. Marks, PLLC
2318 N.W. Military Hwy – Suite 104
San Antonio, TX 78231
(210)257-0631
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
CitiMortgage Inc. represented by Sabrina A. Neff
Husch Blackwell LLP
600 Travis St., Suite 2350
Houston, TX 77002
713-525-6248
Fax: 713-647-6884
Email: sabrina.neff@huschblackwell.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Cenlar FSB represented by Sabrina A. Neff
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
11/15/2021 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Cenlar FSB, CitiMortgage Inc. (Filing fee $402 receipt number 0542-15440622), filed by Cenlar FSB, CitiMortgage Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D)(Neff, Sabrina) (Entered: 11/15/2021)
11/15/2021 2 SUPPLEMENT to 1 Notice of Removal, JS 44 Civil Cover Sheet by Cenlar FSB, CitiMortgage Inc.. (Neff, Sabrina) (Entered: 11/15/2021)
11/15/2021 3 Certificate of Interested Parties by Cenlar FSB, CitiMortgage Inc.. (Neff, Sabrina) (Entered: 11/15/2021)
11/19/2021 4 Order for Scheduling Recommendations– The parties shall submit a proposed scheduling order to the Court within sixty days after any defendant has appeared. Notice of right to consent to disposition of a civil case by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Fred Biery. (bc) (Entered: 11/19/2021)
11/19/2021 5 COURT ADVISORY CONCERNING DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Fred Biery. (bc) (Entered: 11/19/2021)
11/19/2021 6 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney. Signed by Judge Fred Biery. (bc) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

U.S. District Court [LIVE]
Western District of Texas (San Antonio)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:20-cv-00248-DAE

Innocenti v. Cenlar FSB
Assigned to: Judge David A. Ezra

Case in other court:  285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, 2020-CI-02253

Cause: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

Date Filed: 02/28/2020
Date Terminated: 03/24/2020
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Debra L. Innocenti represented by Matthew J. Obermeier
Oliva Saks Garcia & Curiel, L.L.P.
14255 Blanco Rd
San Antonio, TX 78216
(210) 308-6600
Fax: (210) 308-6939
Email: matt@osgclaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Cenlar FSB represented by Crystal Gee Gibson
Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP
4004 Belt Line Road, Suite 100
Addison, TX 75001
(972) 386-5040
Fax: (972) 341-0734
Email: crystalR@bdfgroup.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert Davis Forster , II
Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner and Engel LLP
4004 Belt Line Road, Ste. 100
Addison, TX 75001
972-386-5040
Fax: 972-341-0734
Email: robertfo@bdfgroup.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDShelley L. Hopkins
Hopkins Law, PLLC
3 Lakeway Centre Ct.
Suite 110
Austin, TX 78734
512-600-4320
Email: shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
02/28/2020 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Cenlar FSB (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0542-13276725), filed by Cenlar FSB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – State Court File, # 2 Exhibit B – State Court Docket, # 3 Exhibit C – Bexar County Appraisal District Record, # 4 Exhibit D – Civil Cover Sheet, # 5 Exhibit E – Supplement to Civil Cover Sheet)(Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
03/02/2020 2 Certificate of Interested Parties by Cenlar FSB. (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
03/03/2020 3 Order for Scheduling Recommendations/Proposed Scheduling Order. Scheduling recommendations/proposed scheduling order due to the Court within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Notice of right to consent to disposition of a civil case by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (wg) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
03/04/2020 4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Cenlar FSB. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
03/24/2020 5 ORDER GRANTING re 4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Cenlar FSB,The Court GRANTS Cenlars Motion toDismiss. Because allowing Plaintiff leave to amend her claims would be futile, the Court will DISMISS Plaintiffs claims. The Clerks office is instructed to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE the CASE. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (wg) (Entered: 03/24/2020)
03/24/2020 6 CLERK’S JUDGMENT (wg) (Entered: 03/24/2020)

It’s that time again — the Friday before Valentine’s Day — when we get excited about the chance to have fun exploring love and business through the lens of Power Couples, dynamic duos who have made names for themselves through their careers while managing to keep their romantic fires stoked.

Besides enabling us to get to know these couples in a nonbusiness setting, our Power Couples issue gives our creative team — consisting of lead designer Meredith Sheffer and visual journalist Gabe Hernandez — a venue to cut loose and engage our couples. This year, they came up big with a game show theme and a special element: a video of our “contestants” above.

Thanks to our Power Couples for allowing us to showcase them in a more personal light than they may be used to as businesspeople. We hope they enjoyed the time we spent together as much as we did. And we hope you, our readers, enjoy reading about them.

Debra Innocenti-Placette and Drue Placette

She is: Co-founder and partner at intellectual property and securities law firm Innocenti Jones PLLC

He is: Chief Technology Officer at electric scooter company Blue Duck

When local tech royalty Debra Innocenti-Placette and Drue Placette — crowned as such by their fellow geeks at Geekdom — got married the day after Valentine’s Day, there wasn’t a large ceremony with caterers and cake. Instead, the pair tied the knot in the afternoon with little fanfare.

“We got married in between meetings,” Debra said. “We’re very much function over form. We were terribly in love, deeply committed to each other, and having an expensive ceremony was meaningless.”

The couple’s happy union lends credence to the saying that opposites attract — in their case, polar opposites. She’s a vegetarian, he’s an adventurous omnivore. He’s a collector, she’s a minimalist. And while she’s more of an introvert, he’s extroverted.

Despite all that, they described an instantaneous attraction the first time they met at Geekdom, a tech-centric coworking space, that’s powered from what they have in common.

“We’re very different, but in terms of our core values, we’re the same,” Debra said. “In our professional life, we’re both very engaged with ideas, technology and innovation. It’s what we’re passionate about.”

Drue was born in Houston, went to etiquette school growing up and got a degree in computer science. Debra was born on a ranch in Victoria and went on to earn a college degree in English and then graduate from law school.

“She’s very Steve Jobs. I’m very Steve Wozniak,” Drue said. “We immediately clicked and ended up talking for hours. I knew she was my soul mate.”

Debra is co-founder of Innocenti Jones PLLC, a boutique intellectual property and securities law firm, and Drue is chief technology officer of electric scooter startup Blue Duck.

The couple aspires to work together at the same company someday. That way they won’t have to squeeze out every moment together as entrepreneurs working long hours.

Debra has been found taking power naps in the warmest corner of an otherwise chilly data center where Drue was working late into the night on computer servers. She even tiptoes around computer chips at home when there’s a stray from the impromptu makerspace in their home.

“We’re kind of each other’s founder spouse,” Debra said. “I could have been home watching TV, but I would have been missing time with him.”

Drue recently spent about a month in China for work, and the pair found time to be together.

“I flew her to Japan so I could spend some time with her between meetings,” Drue said.

To unwind, the pair unfurl bows and shoot arrows together on a Texas Hill Country ranch.

“It’s not about being competitive,” Drue said. “It’s fun doing stuff together. Long bows and compound [bows] are all pure instinct. We don’t use sights.”

“It’s meditative and also involves engineering,” Debra said. “You can just turn off your brain.”

LIT Foreclosure Tracker is Now Watchin’ Attorney Debra Innocenti’s Return as Placette, a Former BDF Hopkins Case
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