By
Posted on
De La Fuente v. PHH Mortgage Corporation
(4:23-cv-01243)
District Court, N.D. Texas
JAN 2, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: FEB 5, 2024
FEB 5, 2024
Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.
Case dismissed without prejudice.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:23-cv-01243-P
| De La Fuente v. PHH Mortgage Corporation Assigned to: Judge Mark Pittman
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Date Terminated: 01/31/2024 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Mauricio Pavel De La Fuente | represented by | Thomas C Barron Law Offices of Thomas C Barron PC PO Box 141323 Dallas, TX 75214 214-855-6631 Fax: 214-855-6633 Email: tbarron@barronlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| PHH Mortgage Corporation | represented by | Brett W Schouest Dykema Cox Smith 112 E Pecan Suite 1800 San Antonio, TX 78205 210-554-5269 Fax: 210-226-8395 Email: bschouest@dykema.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSalvador Jason Robles Dykema Gossett PLLC 1717 Main Street Suite 4200 Dallas, TX 75201 214-698-7875 Fax: 888-761-8879 Email: srobles@dykema.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 12/14/2023 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Filing fee $405; receipt number ATXNDC-14247345) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements and Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information – Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D-1, # 5 Exhibit(s) D-2, # 6 Exhibit(s) E-1, # 7 Exhibit(s) E-2, # 8 Exhibit(s) F, # 9 Exhibit(s) G, # 10 Exhibit(s) H, # 11 Cover Sheet, # 12 Cover Sheet Supplement) (Robles, Salvador) (Entered: 12/14/2023) |
| 12/14/2023 | 2 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Robles, Salvador) (Entered: 12/14/2023) |
| 12/18/2023 | 3 | New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. File to: Judge Pittman. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge. Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. Attorneys are further reminded that, if necessary, they must comply with Local Rule 83.10(a) within 14 days or risk the possible dismissal of this case without prejudice or without further notice. (saw) (Entered: 12/18/2023) |
| 12/21/2023 | 4 | MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Robles, Salvador) (Entered: 12/21/2023) |
| 01/02/2024 | 5 | ORDER: The Court ORDERS that (1) by January 23, 2024, Plaintiff(s) file an amended complaint and (2) within 14 days after Plaintiff(s) file an amended complaint, but no later than February 6, 2024, Defendant(s) file an answer or other response to the amended complaint. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 1/2/2024) (saw) (Entered: 01/02/2024) |
| 01/02/2024 | 6 | ORDER: Lead counsel for each party or designee attorney with appropriate authority and any unrepresented party must confer (“Scheduling Conference”) in an in-person, face-to-face conference as soon as practicable. As a result of the Scheduling Conference, counsel must prepare and submit a Report Regarding Contents of Scheduling Order (“Joint Report”) by January 30, 2024. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 1/2/2024) (saw) (Entered: 01/02/2024) |
| 01/30/2024 | 7 | Joint STATUS REPORT Joint Report Regarding Contents of Scheduling Order filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Schouest, Brett) (Entered: 01/30/2024) |
| 01/31/2024 | 8 | ORDER: This Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by January 23, 2024. See ECF No. 5 . He did not do so. Accordingly, consistent with the language of the order, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 1/31/2024) (saw) (Entered: 01/31/2024) |
| 01/31/2024 | 9 | FINAL JUDGMENT: This final judgment is issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a). In accordance with the Court’s Order on this same day (ECF No. 8 ), this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall transmit a true copy of this judgment to the parties. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 1/31/2024) (saw) (Entered: 01/31/2024) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 02/05/2024 06:44:05 |
COMPARE MASS. JURY (CITIZENS) JUDGMENT WITH US GOV. VIEW OF FORECLOSURE SCAMMERS IN TEXAS COURTS, WHO ARE DEEMED “FRIENDS OF THE COURT”
Boston Homeowner Triumphs Against Foreclosure Rescue Scammers, Jury Awards Millions in Damages – Laws In Texas https://t.co/fm8cZCWpNp @DOJBJA pic.twitter.com/VVW03Pohsj— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) February 2, 2024
MAURICIO PAVEL DE LA FUENTE VS. THE PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION
048-348460-23
DEC 1, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: FEB 5, 2024
The Real Scumbag Series: Investigating Nanik Bhagia’s 10-Year Connection to 5709 Langley
Questionable Oversight: PHH Mortgage’s Disinterest in 5709 Langley Houston, TX 77016 Amid Foreclosure Concerns
Texas Law Professors on Bankruptcy and Civil Rights Won’t Confront Premeditated Judicial Misconduct
Three lauded Texas University law schools employ these academics. Despite their resumes centered on civil rights, they refuse to defend them.
Second Quick-Fire Ruling by Federal Magistrate Judge Challenges Integrity of Her Own Scheduling Order
Uneven Treatment: Judge Allows Longer Response Time for Opposing Party and their Counsel Despite Previous Restrictions on Pro Se Plaintiff.
