LIT’s Background Check on One Percent Homeowner Wendy Kew and 99 Percent Owner Yvonne Kew, MD

The court announces trial in late August, who’s goin’ when the case has percolated for well over a year doin’ nothin’? We doubt Brandy Alexander will show, she’s hidin’ out at the lower courts. And, remember folks, the prior case(s) were dismissed with prejudice to refilin’…but when you’re in the medical field in H-Town….that’s excusable.

LIT’s anticipatin’ a trial reset…

AUG 23 UPDATE FROM LIT

Not to be disappointed, trial continued.

Meanwhile, fellow foreclosure mill law firm McGlinchey Stafford are citing to Kew’s last federal case, dismissed WITH PREJUDICE (think res judicata)*.

*Kew v. Bank of Am., N.A., Case No. H-11-2824, 2012 WL 1414978, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2023)(collecting cases).

FINAL JUDGMENT entered. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Case terminated on 11/16/12. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, ) – Doc. 34.

“Collecting cases” – LIT agrees.

1. Bassett v. PHH Mortg. Corp.

   4:23-cv-02952 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 27, 2024)

   • • Motion to dismiss
     • Property – RESPA
     • Contract – Good Faith and Fair Dealing
     • Mortgage Banking
     • Banks

   2 more…

   “[C]laims for violating [Section 51.002’s] notice requirements are cognizable only after a foreclosure.” Kew v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL 1414978, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012) (collecting authorities

2. Young v. UOP LLC

   Civil Action 21-282-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. Jan. 25, 2024)

   • • Motion for summary judgment
     • Con. Law – Discrim. – Disabilities
     • Labor & Employ. – Discrim. – Disabilities

   2 more…

   Id.; see also Sons v. Medtronic Inc., 915 F.Supp.2d 776, 781 (W.D. La. 2013)(“A court ‘may take judicial notice of and consider the public records of the FDA .. .’”); Johnson v. United Healthcare of Texas, Inc., 167 F.Supp.3d 825, 835 (“[D]istrict courts in this circuit have routinely held that materials printed off a government website are admissible under Rule 803(8) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See, e.g., Riverkeeper v. Taylor Energy Co., LLC, 113 F.Supp.3d 870, 881 (E.D. La.2015); Kew v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. H-11-2824, 2012 WL 1414978, at *3 n. 4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012)). 113 F.Supp.3d 870, 881, n. 52 (E.D. La. 2015)(citing e.g., E.E.O.C. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., No. Civ. A. 03-1605, 2004 WL 2347559, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 18, 2004) (collecting cases); Williams v. Long, 585 F.Supp.2d 679, 690-91 (D.Md.2008) (same); Estate of Gonzales v. Hickman, No. ED CV 05660 MMM (RCx), 2007 WL 3237727, at *2 n. 3 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2007))

3. Adegbenro v. Bank of Am.

   4:22-cv-00828 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2022)

   • Process Causes – Other

   . The Court can and does take judicial notice that the value as of January 1, 2022-closer to the March 14, 2022 date of removal, Dkt. 1-is even higher: $199,326.See Kew v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL 1414978, at *3 n.4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012) (applying Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2) to take judicial notice of property’s appraised fair-market value, as published on Harris County Appraisal District’s website).

4. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Murphy

   6:21-cv-353-JDK (E.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2022)   Cited 2 times

   • • Motion for summary judgment
     • Contract – Good Faith and Fair Dealing
     • Contract – Other

   1 more…

   Indeed, courts routinely admit information from county appraisal districts under Rule 803(8). Hearn v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 2013 WL 6079460, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2013) (collecting cases) (“Although Hearrn objects to the appraisal printout as hearsay, it is actually a public record under Rule 803(8) because it represents the findings of a governmental process to collect information about real property.”); Kew v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL 1414978, at *3 n.4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012). The parties do not dispute that proof of title is sufficient to establish an insurable interest.

5. Mosely v. Newrez Mortg.

   Civil Action 4:21-CV-396 (S.D. Tex. May. 4, 2022)   Cited 2 times

   • Motion to dismiss
   • Property – RESPA
   • Fraud – Misrepresentation

   The Court can also take judicial notice of these valuations under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 as a public record not subject to reasonable dispute. See Kew v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 11-CV-2824, 2012 WL 1414978, at *3 n.4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012). The Harris County Appraisal District’s valuations should be considered.

6. Suarez v. U.S. Bank

   No. SA-19-CV-00704-FB (W.D. Tex. Jul. 31, 2019)

   • • Motion to dismiss
     • Tort – Negligence
     • Contract – Other
     • Commercial Banking
     • Banks

   2 more…

   Section 51.002 governs foreclosure procedures under Texas law, and statutory claims under Section 51.002 may arise only after the completion of the foreclosure. Denley v. Vericrest Fin., Inc., No. CIV.A. H-12-992, 2012 WL 2368325, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 2012); see also Kew v. Bank of America, N.A., No. H-11-2824, 2012 WL 1414978, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012) (“Because § 51.002 outlines the procedures for conducting a foreclosure sale, claims for violating its notice requirements are cognizable only after a foreclosure.”). Plaintiff’s claims under Section 51.002 are based upon a foreclosure sale date of June 4, 2019, and there is nothing before the Court suggesting that a foreclosure sale has already occurred.

7. Trevino v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co.

   SA-18-CV-00898-DAE (W.D. Tex. Jul. 26, 2019)

   • Motion for summary judgment
   • Contract – Other
   • Commercial Banking
   • Banks

   Section 51.002 governs foreclosure procedures under Texas law, and statutory claims under Section 51.002 may arise only after the completion of the foreclosure. Denley v. Vericrest Fin., Inc., No. CIV.A. H-12-992, 2012 WL 2368325, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 2012); see also Kew v. Bank of America, N.A., No. H-11-2824, 2012 WL 1414978, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012) (Rosenthal, J.) (“Because § 51.002 outlines the procedures for conducting a foreclosure sale, claims for violating its notice requirements are cognizable only after a foreclosure.”). There is no evidence in the record suggesting that a foreclosure sale has already occurred in this case.

8. Johnson v. United Healthcare of Tex., Inc.

   167 F. Supp. 3d 825 (W.D. Tex. 2016)   Cited 3 times

   • • Motion for summary judgment
     • Motion to dismiss
     • Labor & Employ. – ERISA
     • Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Other

   3 more…

   Applying the Bowen factors

   Plaintiffs’ contention is without merit. First, district courts in this circuit have routinely held that materials printed off a government website are admissible under Rule 803(8) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See, e.g.,Riverkeeper v. Taylor Energy Co., LLC, 113 F.Supp.3d 870, 881 (E.D.La.2015) ; Kew v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. H–11–2824, 2012 WL 1414978, at *3 n. 4 (S.D.Tex. Apr. 23, 2012).Second, United Health’s introduction of this evidence is in response to Plaintiff’s contention, raised for their first time in their response, that the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), specifically 42 U.S.C. §§ 300GG–11, 10822, alters the terms of the Certificate and abrogates the limitations on health benefits under the Certificate.

9. Foster v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co.

   CIVIL ACTION NO.4:14-CV-436-Y (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2016)   Cited 2 times

   • • Motion for summary judgment
     • Property – Foreclosure
     • Contract – Other
     • Commercial Banking
     • Banks

   1 more…

   Likewise, statutory claims under § 51.002 may arise only after the completion of the foreclosure. Denley v. Vericrest Financial, Inc., No. H-12-992, 2012 WL 2368325, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 2012)(Werlein, J.)(citing Kew v. Bank of America, N.A., No. H-11-2824, 2012 WL 1414978, at *6 (S.D. Tex. April 23, 2012)(Rosenthal, J.)). In support of their motion, Defendants offer the sworn declaration and supporting documents of Crystal Kearse, who is the loan analyst and custodian of records for defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), to establish the following facts. (Defs.

10. Devine v. Educ. Testing Serv.

    CIV. A. NO. H-14-1782 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2014)

    • • Motion to dismiss
      • Contract – Other
      • Consumer – Unfair and Deceptive Practices

    1 more…

    Judicial notice can be taken of information on an official government website. Kew v. Bank of Am., N.A., H-11-2824, 2012 WL 1414978, at *3 n.4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012). What constitutes “discrepant scores” is not the same for the two constructed-response questions. For the literary analysis essay, the two raters must either give identical scores or a third rater will be added to score the answer.

    1. Dunn v. Midland Mortg.

       CIVIL ACTION H-13-3516 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2014)   Cited 1 times

       While the Fifth Circuit has not yet decided whether an appraisal district’s valuation is competent evidence, district courts have routinely relied on such evidence to establish the amount in controversy. See, e.g., Hearn v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l. Trust Co., 2013 WL 6079460, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2013) (collecting cases holding appraisal valuations as competent evidence to establish the amount in controversy); Kew v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL 1414978, at *3 n. 4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012) (denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike the Harris County Appraisal District’s valuation as hearsay). Although defendant objects to the Madison County Tax Appraisal District valuation as hearsay, it is an exception to the rule as “a public record under Rule 803(8) because it represents the findings of a governmental process to collect information about real property.”

    2. Hearn v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co.

       CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-2417-B (N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2013)   Cited 3 times

       • Motion for summary judgment
       • Motion to dismiss
       • Fraud – Other
       • Commercial Banking
       • Banks

       The Court notes that it is not uncommon for the court to receive evidence of property value similar to the evidence that Defendants submit here. See, e.g., Stewart v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 3:12-cv-2630-M-BK, 2012 WL 5903801, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2012) (finding Dallas Central Appraisal District valuation to be persuasive); Hayward v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 3:10-cv-2463-G, 2011 WL 2881298, at *4 (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2011) (relying on a property appraisal from the Dallas Central Appraisal District as proof of the amount in controversy); McDonald v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 3:11 -cv-2691-B, 2011 WL 6396628, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2011) (accepting appraisal from Dallas Central Appraisal District as proof of property value). Although Hearn objects to the appraisal printout as hearsay, it is actually a public record under Rule 803(8) because it represents the findings of a governmental process to collect information about real property. Kew v. Bank of America, N.A., No. H-11-2824, 2012 WL 1414978, at *3 n.4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012); Govea v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. H-10-3482, 2010 WL 5140064, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2010). Furthermore, because the same document is readily accessible through the Internet, there is no lack of trustworthiness.

    3. Brown v. Bank of Am., N.A.

       Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-2843-D (N.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2013)   Cited 2 times

       1st Am. Comp. 4. “In actions seeking . . . injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Knox, 351 Fed. Appx. 844, 848 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)); Kew v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL 1414978, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012) (holding that amount in controversy when plaintiffs sought temporary restraining order to halt foreclosure was value of property in dispute); Hayward v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 2011 WL 2881298, at *5 (N.D. Tex. July 8, 2012) (Fish, J.) (holding same in suit to quiet title). BOA removed this case based on diversity jurisdiction and has established that the court has diversity jurisdiction.

    4. Bassie v. Bank of Am., N.A.

       CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-00891 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2012)   Cited 19 times

       • • Motion to dismiss
         • Contract – Other
         • Tort – Negligence

       5 more…

       Holding that TDCPA claims do not include a lender’s failure to respond to borrower’s attempt to obtain a loan modification

       Under the law, however, claims under §51.002 may arise only after the completion of the foreclosure and the mortgagor must have lost possession of the home. See Denley, 2012 WL 2368325, at *3 (no claim for “wrongful foreclosure” until after the foreclosure has taken place); Kew v. Bank of America, N.A., No. H-11-2824, 2012 WL 1414978, at *6 (S.D.Tex. April 23, 2012) (because §51.002 “outlines the procedures for conducting a foreclosure sale, claims for violating its notice requirements are cognizable only after a foreclosure”); Motten v. Chase Home Finance, 831 F.Supp.2d 988, 1007 (S.D.Tex. 2011) (“courts in Texas do not recognize” an action for “attempted” wrongful foreclosure; individuals cannot recover on a theory of wrongful foreclosure if they have not lost possession of their home).

    5. Denley v. Vericrest Fin., Inc.

       CIVIL ACTION No. H-12-992 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 21, 2012)   Cited 13 times

       • • Motion to dismiss
         • Contract – Other
         • Tort – Negligence

       5 more…

       Dismissing breach of contract claim based on alleged violations of HAMP regulations

       Statutory claims under § 51.002 may arise only after the completion of the foreclosure. See Kew v. Bank of America, N.A., No. H-11-2824, 2012 WL 1414978, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2012) (Rosenthal, J.)(“Because § 51.002 outlines the procedures for conducting a foreclosure sale, claims for violating its notice requirements are cognizable only after a foreclosure.”). See also Ayers v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 787 F. Supp. 2d 451, 454 (E.D. Tex. 2011) (claims for violations of Texas Property Code dismissed because no foreclosure sale occurred).

Foreclosure address; 2703 S Glen Haven Blvd, Houston, TX 77025

Litigation history; current case (percolatin’ since July 2023)

Prior lawsuits dismissed WITH PREJUDICE to refiling.

No foreclosure has taken place since end of TI in Aug. 2023.

Not a peep from Locke Lord in these proceedings.

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:15-cv-02835

Wendy Kew (15-33622), United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas (Dismissed).