Marshall v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation
(3:22-cv-01084)
District Court, N.D. Texas
MAY 17, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 19, 2022
Case frozen since July 7, over 2 months have passed. NADA.
Premature Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Freedom Mortgage Corporation on Jun 6.
+++++++++
Plaintiff, represented by foreclosure defense counsel Thomas C. Barron, must file a written response to the motion by July 6, 2022.
Defendant may file a reply brief, but no additional documents, by July 21, 2022.
(Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 6/7/2022) (mcrd) Modified on 6/10/2022 (mcrd). (Entered: 06/07/2022)
+++++++++
No initial conference ORDERED and Rule 26(f) report filed late.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:22-cv-01084-K-BN
| Marshall v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation Assigned to: Judge Ed Kinkeade Referred to: Magistrate Judge David L. Horan
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
Date Filed: 05/16/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 05/23/2022 | 5 | Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by Freedom Mortgage Corporation (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Petition) (Conway, Bradley) (Entered: 05/23/2022) |
| 05/23/2022 | 6 | ORDER granting 5 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to 1 Notice of Removal. Freedom Mortgage Corporation answer due 6/6/2022. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 5/23/2022) (jmg) (Entered: 05/24/2022) |
| 06/06/2022 | 7 | Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Freedom Mortgage Corporation (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6), # 2 Proposed Order) (Conway, Bradley) (Entered: 06/06/2022) |
| 06/07/2022 | 8 | ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE: Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted by Plaintiff Latosha Marshall in her First Amended Petition. See Dkt. No. 7 . Plaintiff must file a written response to the motion by July 6, 2022. Defendant may file a reply brief, but no additional documents, by July 21, 2022. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 6/7/2022) (mcrd) Modified on 6/10/2022 (mcrd). (Entered: 06/07/2022) |
| 06/22/2022 | 9 | Proposal for contents of scheduling and discovery order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26(F) by Freedom Mortgage Corporation. (Conway, Bradley) (Entered: 06/22/2022) |
| 06/22/2022 | 10 | INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Joinder of Parties due by 7/31/2022. Amended Pleadings due by 7/31/2022. Discovery due by 12/5/2022. Deadline for mediation is on or before 12/21/2022. Motions due by 1/4/2023. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 6/22/2022) (mcrd) (Entered: 06/22/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 06/26/2022 07:19:21 |
STANDING ORDER ON DISCOVERY AND OTHER NON-DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
This case has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of reference from United States District Judge Ed Kinkeade. See Dkt. No. 2.
This order governs the filing and disposition of all discovery-related motions, pleading disputes, and other non-dispositive motions in this case.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b).
This order does not govern motions that are dispositive of a claim or defense (and as to which the undersigned may only make a recommendation subject to the district judge’s de novo review), such as motions for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to certify or decertify a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim, to involuntarily dismiss a case, for sanctions (if sanctions, as requested, would dispose of a claim or defense), for new trial, for judgment as a matter of law, or to remand a case to state court.
See generally FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a)-(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(b).
1. Informal Resolution of Pretrial Disputes.
The undersigned encourages the informal resolution of all contested pretrial disputes.
To this end, in appropriate circumstances as described below, the undersigned welcomes the parties’ scheduling a telephone conference with the undersigned before a non-dispositive motion is filed.
This is not an invitation to engage in ex parte communications or obtain advisory rulings from the undersigned.
Rather, the parties are required to attempt to resolve by agreement any disputes on non-dispositive matters by meaningfully conferring before seeking the undersigned’s involvement – but, if that fails to resolve the dispute, are encouraged, where appropriate, to seek an informal telephone conference with the undersigned to attempt to resolve relatively simple and straightforward disputes in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Some examples include:
(a) motions for leave to amend pleadings within the deadline established in the pretrial scheduling order;
(b) problems or issues that arise during depositions, such as excessive objections or a witness’s refusal to answer questions;
(c) disagreements over the interpretation or effect of prior court orders;
(d) extending pretrial deadlines or other scheduling matters;
and
(e) emergency situations that require immediate judicial intervention.
This list is not exhaustive.
Any request to schedule an informal telephone conference should be made – after conferring with the party or parties affected by the dispute – by calling the undersigned’s chambers at (214) 753-2400.
But an informal telephone conference should be requested only when the parties have a legitimate disagreement over a non-substantive, non-dispositive issue that can be resolved in a summary fashion.
For example, disputes over objections to discovery requests or privilege issues or disputes that involve questions of law on which the Court can expect the parties to provide substantive briefing in a joint report as discussed below generally are not appropriate for an informal telephone conference.
2. Pre-Motion Conference.
Whether or not the parties have asked for an informal telephone conference, no non-dispositive motion may be filed unless the party seeking relief first confers by telephone or meets face-to-face with the party or parties affected by the dispute, including, where applicable, co-plaintiffs or co-defendants.
See Dondi Props. Corp. v. Commerce Savs. & Loan Ass’n, 121 F.R.D. 284, 289-90 (N.D. Tex. 1988)
(available at http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/pdf/Notablecases/Dondi.PDF);
accord FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1);
FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1);
N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 7.l(a).1
1 Cf. MMAR Group, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 282, 290 (S.D. Tex. 1999)
(noting “this Court’s practice to encourage parties to cooperate at every stage of the pretrial discovery process and to make liberal, voluntary productions of evidence and other tangible items that may lead to the discovery of evidence”);
Alvarez v. Wallace, 107 F.R.D. 658, 659 (W.D. Tex. 1985)
(“With respect to the discovery process,
see generally FED. R. CIV. P. 1
(The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”);
FED. R. CIV. P. 1 advisory committee’s note (2015)
(“Rule 1 is amended to emphasize that just as the court should construe and administer these rules to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, so the parties share the responsibility to employ the rules in the same way.
Most lawyers and parties cooperate to achieve these ends.
But discussions of ways to improve the administration of civil justice regularly include pleas to discourage over-use, misuse, and abuse of procedural tools that increase cost and result in delay.
Effective advocacy is consistent with – and indeed depends upon – cooperative and proportional use of procedure.”).
Federal Judges Invent Jurisdiction to Issue Lawless Writ of Execution Aimed at 86-Yr Old Widow
Contrary to what Plaintiff argues, subject matter jurisdiction existed in this Court at the time of removal. – Magistrate Judge Chris Bryan.
Criminal Acts: Outlaw Federal Judges Lawless Orders to Seize Homes Contrary to Texas Laws
This judicial order, which erroneously claims the lien has already been foreclosed would allow the lender a minimum of 10 years to foreclose.
US Gov. Enforcing Lawless Writ Which Silences Truth to Steal Texans Homes by Federal Judges in 2025
PHH has been burdened by Plaintiff’s continued litigation, as have various lawyers and government officials in the court system.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:22-cv-01084-K-BN
| Marshall v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation Assigned to: Judge Ed Kinkeade Referred to: Magistrate Judge David L. Horan
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
Date Filed: 05/16/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Latosha Marshall | 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 Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| Freedom Mortgage Corporation | represented by | Bradley James Conway Miller, George & Suggs, PLLC 5601 Democracy Drive, Suite 265 Plano, TX 75024 972-532-0128 Fax: 214-291-5507 Email: bconway@mgs-legal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Admitted/In Good StandingDustin Cole George Miller, George & Suggs, PLLC PO Box 117161 Carrollton, TX 75011-7161 469.514.9179 Fax: 214-291-5507 Email: dgeorge@mgs-legal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 05/16/2022 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Freedom Mortgage Corporation. (Filing fee $402; receipt number 0539-12825931) 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 – State Court Docket, # 2 Exhibit(s) B – State Court Pleadings, # 3 Exhibit(s) C – Declaration of BC, # 4 Cover Sheet) (Conway, Bradley) (Entered: 05/16/2022) |
| 05/16/2022 | 2 | New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. CASREF case referral set and case referred to Magistrate Judge Horan (see Special Order 3). Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt) (Entered: 05/16/2022) |
| 05/17/2022 | 3 |
STANDING ORDER ON DISCOVERY AND OTHER NON-DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 5/17/2022) (mcrd) (Entered: 05/17/2022) |
| 05/17/2022 | 4 | ORDER REQUIRING 26(F) REPORT: Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel must confer telephonically or in person not later than May 31, 2022. By June 21, 2022, the parties must submit a joint written Rule 26(f) report containing a proposed discovery plan. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 5/17/2022) (mcrd) (Entered: 05/17/2022) |
