LIT UPDATE
Judge Kenneth Hoyt acknowledges Superior Group claims to own property. A DBA ain’t got legal standing either.
SD Tex. still charging LIT on PACER for final judgments, which should be free (BTW).
MAY 7, DEC 23, 2023
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.
Before the Court is the defendant’s, PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”), motion for summary judgment (DE 7) asserted against the plaintiffs, Superior Consulting Group and Tracey Woodson’s (“Superior”), concerning a certain piece of real estate in Houston, Texas.
Superior has not responded to PHH’s motion even though the time to respond has expired and a notice of no response [DE 8] in the form of an order was issued [DE 9] informing Superior that the motion would be taken up by the Court after April 10, 2023, at this writing, no response has been filed.
II.
In light of the status of the pleadings, the Court adopts as undisputed, the factual and procedural background presented by PHH with omissions as follows:
On or about December 16, 2009, Woodson obtained a mortgage loan (the “Loan”) in the original principal sum of $112,542.00 from Cornerstone Mortgage Company, which is evidenced by a promissory note (the “Note”) secured by a deed of trust (the “Deed of Trust”)
encumbering the real property commonly known as 16107 Sheldon Ridge Way, Houston, TX 77044 (the “Property”).
Non-party Karlton Woodson (“Mr. Woodson”) is a co-signatory to the Deed of Trust, but is not an obligor under the Note.
Superior, a sole proprietorship of Plaintiff, purports to now be the owner of the Property.
In July of 2013, Woodson and Mr. Woodson entered into a Home Affordable Modification Agreement (the “Modification Agreement”) with Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”) pursuant to which the terms of the Loan were modified.4 Ocwen thereafter merged with and into PHH effective June 1, 2019, [pursuant to New Jersey Stat. Ann. § 14A: 10- 14(c)(3)].
PHH is in possession of the Note, which is indorsed in blank, and is the assignee of record for the Deed of Trust.
Notwithstanding the Modification Agreement, Woodson defaulted on the Loan in December of 2016. As a result, on January 4, 2017, PHH (through its predecessor, Ocwen) sent Woodson a Notice of Default (the “Default Notice”) wherein it notified her of her default on the Loan.
Shortly after PHH sent the Default Notice, on March 3, 2017, Woodson filed a voluntary petition (the “2017 Bankruptcy”) for relief under chapter 13 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. (the “Bankruptcy Code”).
Woodson filed a chapter 13 plan in the 2017 Bankruptcy in which she proposed to cure the default on the Loan and maintain her ongoing monthly payments under the Loan.
The 2017 Bankruptcy was subsequently dismissed on February 13, 2018.
On March 2, 2018, eighteen days after the 2017 Bankruptcy was dismissed, Woodson filed a second voluntary petition (the “2018 Bankruptcy”) for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. As she did in the 2017 Bankruptcy, Woodson filed a chapter 13 plan in the 2018 Bankruptcy in which she proposed to cure the default on the Loan and maintain her ongoing monthly payments under the Loan.
The 2018 Bankruptcy was converted to a chapter 7 on March 12, 2019, and Woodson received a chapter 7 discharge on June 11, 2019.
On June 27, 2019, PHH sent Woodson a Notice of Intention to Foreclose (the “Notice of Intention”) wherein it again notified her of her default on the Loan.
On February 21, 2022, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing their Original Petition against PHH, Guild Mortgage Company, f/d/b/a Cornerstone Mortgage Company (“Guild”), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) in the District Court of Harris County Texas, 61st Judicial District.
One day later, on February 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their aforementioned Amended Petition wherein they enumerate claims for:
(a) statutory fraud; (b) common law fraud; (c) breach of contract; and (d) quiet title.
On March 11, 2022, Guild and MERS were nonsuited, leaving PHH as the only remaining defendant to this action. PHH filed its answer to the Amended Petition on March 17, 2022. PHH then removed the Amended Petition to this Court on March 18, 2022.
III.
The summary judgment evidence presented in support of PHH’s motion for summary and the arguments presented are compelling.
See [PHH Exhibits A, A1-10, B, B-1, C, D, E and F, incorporated herein.]
The granting of a summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the facts presented support granting such a motion Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
In its Amended Petition, Superior asserts that PHH committed statutory fraud, common law fraud, breach of contract and trespass against Superior’s title and legal ownership to the property in dispute. These claims, standing alone, do not raise a disputed fact issue and are essentially just that – claims that are not supported by evidence or facts that are not refuted by PHH evidence which evidence is undisputed.
See [Exhibits].
Because Superior’s pleadings are not supported by evidence and are refuted by PHH’s evidentiary proffer, the Court determines that PHH’s motion for summary judgment should be and it is Hereby Granted.
PHH shall within 15 days from the entry of this Memorandum Order to submit its proposed Final Judgment.
It is so Ordered.
SIGNED on May 2, 2023, at Houston, Texas.
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 7 MOTION for Summary Judgment
(Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(JacquelineMata, 4) (Entered: 05/02/2023)
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00896
| Superior Consulting Group et al v. PHH Mortgage Corporation Assigned to: Judge Kenneth M Hoyt
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 02/20/2023 | 7 | MOTION for Summary Judgment by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/13/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – A-10, # 2 Exhibit B – B-1, # 3 Exhibit C, D, E & F)(Del Rio, Alexis) (Entered: 02/20/2023) |
| 03/28/2023 | 8 |
NOTICE of No Response re: 7 MOTION for Summary Judgment by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. (Davis, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/28/2023) |
| 04/10/2023 | 9 | ORDER. Counsel for the defendant has notified the Court that the plaintiffs counsel has failed to file a timely response. This notice informs Counsel that the defendants motion will be taken up by the Court on or after April 10, 2023, without further notice. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(chorace) (Entered: 04/10/2023) |
| 05/02/2023 | 10 | MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 7 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(JacquelineMata, 4) (Entered: 05/02/2023) |
| 05/03/2023 | 11 | PROPOSED ORDER /FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT re: 10 Memorandum and Order, 7 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed.(Davis, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/03/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 05/07/2023 08:32:01 |
This home foreclosure is an irrefutable testimonial that Superior’s services are legit. They will get you an Additional 6 months to One Year in Your Home.
LIT UPDATE
A year later…
MAR 28, 2023
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF NO RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”) files this, its Notice of No Response to PHH’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) and would respectfully show as follows:
1. On February 21, 2022, Plaintiffs Superior Consulting Group and Tracey Woodson (collectively “Plaintiffs”) initiated this suit by filing their original petition in Cause No. 2022- 10621, Superior Consulting Group and Tracey Woodson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, Guild Mortgage Company, fdba Cornerstone Mortgage Company, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), in the 61st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
2. On February 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction and Request for Disclosure.
3. On March 18, 2022, Defendant timely removed the matter to this Court. Doc. 1.
4. On February 20, 2023, PHH filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 7.
5. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.4, Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the Motion was March 13, 2023.
6. To date, and to the best of PHH’s knowledge, Plaintiffs have failed to file a response to the Motion and PHH’s undersigned counsel has not otherwise been served with a response. As such, the Court may consider the Motion unopposed.1
Accordingly, PHH respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and for all other and further relief to which it has shown itself entitled at law or in equity.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Kathryn B. Davis
Kathryn B. Davis
State Bar No. 24050364 kdavis@mcglinchey.com McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC 1001 McKinney, Suite 1500
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 520-1900
Facsimile: (713) 520-1025 and
Brian A. Paino
State Bar No. 24065862 bpaino@mcglinchey.com McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC
6688 N. Central Expressway, Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75206
Telephone: (214) 445-2445
Facsimile: (214) 445-2450
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION
1 See Local Rule 7.4 (“Failure to respond will be taken as a representation of no opposition.”). See also Stevenson v. Fort Bend County, No. H-05-2656, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81319, 2006 WL 3245755 n. 2 (S.D.Tex., Nov. 7, 2006)
(“Plaintiff filed no response to either of these motions, thereby representing that she is unopposed to them.”).
See also Villegas v. Grace Disposal Systems, LLC, No. H-13-320, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154570, 2013 WL 5816554 at *1 (S.D.Tex., Oct. 29, 2013)
(“If a response is not filed by the submission day, it will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” (quotation marks omitted)).
ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE HELD ON August 11, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Appearances: Waived
The following schedule shall govern the disposition of this case: Discovery to be completed by: January 31, 2023
Dispositive motions due by: February 20, 2023 Docket call to be held at 11:30 AM on: June 5, 2023 Estimated trial time: 3-4 days Bench Trial
The following rulings were made:
Discovery may be extended by agreement of the parties without Court intervention. The dispositive motion deadline and docket call dates, however, may not be extended without leave of Court.
Attorney’s fee applications are handled on the papers of the parties after notice.
Expedited responses are required on all pretrial motions save dispositive motions.
SIGNED on August 10, 2022, at Houston, Texas.
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00896
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
| Superior Consulting Group et al v. PHH Mortgage Corporation Assigned to: Judge Kenneth M Hoyt
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Superior Consulting Group | represented by | Rhonda Shedrick Ross , I Law Offices of Rhonda S. Ross Texas 121 East 12th St., Unit 6 Houston Houston, TX 77008 281-216-8778 Email: rhonda@rhondarossattorney.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Tracey Woodson | represented by | Rhonda Shedrick Ross , I (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| PHH Mortgage Corporation | represented by | Alexis Nicole Del Rio McGlinchey Stafford 6688 N Central Expry 1000 Dallas, TX 75206 214-445-2412 Email: adelrio@mcglinchey.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBrian A Paino McGlinchey Stafford 18201 Von Karman Ave Suite 350 Irvine, CA 92612 949-381-5914 Email: bpaino@mcglinchey.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. | represented by | Brian A Paino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 03/18/2022 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 61st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, case number 2022-10621 (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number BTXSDC-27903795) filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – State Court File, # 2 Exhibit B – Harris County CAD, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Supplement)(Paino, Brian) (Entered: 03/18/2022) |
| 03/26/2022 | 2 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference by Telephone and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Counsel who filed or removed the action is responsible for placing the conference call and insuring that all parties are on the line. The call shall be placed to (713)250-5613. Telephone Conference set for 8/11/2022 at 09:00 AM before Judge Kenneth M Hoyt.(Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(chorace) (Entered: 03/26/2022) |
| 07/29/2022 | 3 | CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by PHH Mortgage Corporation identifying Ocwen Financial Corporation as Corporate Parent, filed.(Del Rio, Alexis) (Entered: 07/29/2022) |
| 07/29/2022 | 4 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed.(Del Rio, Alexis) (Entered: 07/29/2022) |
| 08/01/2022 | 5 | JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed.(Paino, Brian) (Entered: 08/01/2022) |
| 08/11/2022 | 6 |
ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on August 11, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. Appearances: Waived. Telephonic appearances are waived. Discovery due by 1/31/2023. Dispositive Motion Filing due by 2/20/2023. Docket Call set for 6/5/2023 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 11A before Judge Kenneth M Hoyt. Discovery may be extended by agreement of the parties without Court intervention. The dispositive motion deadline and docket call dates, however, may not be extended without leave of Court. Attorney’s fee applications are handled on the papers of the parties after notice. Expedited responses are required on all pretrial motions save dispositive motions. ETT: 3-4 days. Bench trial. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(chorace) (Entered: 08/11/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/30/2022 17:27:58 |
Case frozen since March 26. This means, y’all guessed it, the CIP is very, very late for Superior, a paralegal fighting foreclosure and her sanctioned counsel against PHH’s open checkbook and counsel, the Brisket firm of McGlinchey Stafford. One of the longest times to set an initial conference too. It’s 139 days rather than the 90 days.
Update; July 29 – LIT’s glad to be of service in reminding counsel to file the CIP, we’re delighted our case trackin’ is assistin’ y’all. Have no fear, your tardiness will be blanked by the court, based on past behavior.
Tracey Woodson’s Lawyer has been sanctioned in S.D. Tex. by Judge Hughes in prior foreclosure defense cases.
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00896
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
| Superior Consulting Group et al v. PHH Mortgage Corporation Assigned to: Judge Kenneth M Hoyt
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 03/18/2022 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 61st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, case number 2022-10621 (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number BTXSDC-27903795) filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – State Court File, # 2 Exhibit B – Harris County CAD, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Supplement)(Paino, Brian) (Entered: 03/18/2022) |
| 03/26/2022 | 2 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference by Telephone and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Counsel who filed or removed the action is responsible for placing the conference call and insuring that all parties are on the line. The call shall be placed to (713)250-5613. Telephone Conference set for 8/11/2022 at 09:00 AM before Judge Kenneth M Hoyt.(Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(chorace) (Entered: 03/26/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 05/17/2022 16:09:03 |
Superior Consulting Group v. PHH Mortgage Corporation
(4:22-cv-00896)
District Court, S.D. Texas
MAR 18, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: APR 16, 2022
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”) hereby gives notice of the removal of the state court action described below on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
As grounds for the removal, Defendant respectfully states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On February 21, 2022, Plaintiffs Superior Consulting Group (“Superior Consulting”) and Tracey Woodson (“Woodson,” and together with Superior Consulting, the “Plaintiffs”) filed their Original Petition, which initiated a state court action numbered and styled as Cause No. 2022-10621, Superior Consulting Group and Tracey Woodson v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, Guild Mortgage Company fdba Cornerstone Mortgage Company, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., in the 61st Judicial District, Harris County, Texas (the “State Court”).
2. The day after they filed their Original Petition, on February 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction and Request for Disclosure (the “Amended Petition”). In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims for: (a) statutory fraud; (b) common law fraud; (c) breach of contract; and (d) quiet title. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief related to the real property commonly known as 16107 Sheldon Ridge Way, Harris County, Houston, TX (the “Property”).
3. On February 24, 2022, the State Court entered an Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order.
4. On March 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Nonsuit and Dismissal wherein they asked the State Court to sign an Order of Nonsuit on their claims against Guild Mortgage Company fdba Cornerstone Mortgage Company (“Cornerstone”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”).
The State Court entered an Order of Nonsuit on March 11, 2022, wherein it dismissed Cornerstone and MERS from this action.
5. On March 18, 2022, Defendants filed an answer to the Amended Complaint.
6. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), copies of all process, pleadings, orders, and other papers filed in the State Court action and obtained by Defendant are attached hereto and marked as composite Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
II. TIMELINESS OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL
7. As of the date of this notice, Defendants have not been served with a citation.
Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), this removal is timely.1
1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1);
see also Thompson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 775 F.3d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 2014)
(the federal removal and jurisdiction statutes “clearly provide that a defendant’s right to removal runs from the date on which it is formally served with process.”)
(citations omitted).
III. BASIS FOR REMOVAL: DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
8. This Court has original jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because it is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as discussed more fully below.
A. Complete Diversity Exists.
9. For purposes of diversity, the citizenship of an individual is determined by their state of domicile.2 Woodson alleges that she is a resident of Harris County, Texas.3 By virtue of this allegation, Woodson is a citizen of Texas for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.4
10. Under Texas law, a sole proprietorship has no legal existence apart from its owners.5
Thus, a sole proprietorship lacks the capacity to sue independent from its sole proprietor.6
Plaintiffs allege that Superior Consulting is a sole proprietorship.7
Because Superior Consulting has no legal existence or capacity to sue under Texas law, its citizenship can be disregarded.
Even if Superior Consulting’s citizenship were considered, there is still complete diversity between the parties.
Indeed, the citizenship of a sole proprietorship is determined by the citizenship of its owner.8
Upon information and believe, the sole proprietor of Superior Consulting is Anthony Welch, who is a citizen of the State of Texas.
2 See Stine v. Moore, 213 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 1954).
3 See Amended Petition, ¶ 2.
4 Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2011) (For purposes of determining citizenship, “[e]vidence of a person’s place of residence [] is prima facie proof of his domicile.”).
5 See Brantley v. Kuntz, 98 F.Supp.3d 884, 887 (W.D. Tex. 2015).
6 See Horie v. Law Offices of Art Dula, 560 S.W.3d 425, 434 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018) (“[T]he assumed name of a sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity or even a different capacity of the individual sole proprietor.”).
7 See Amended Petition, ¶ 2.
8 See Nyamtsu v. Melgar, 2013 WL 6230454, at *3 (S.D. Tex. 2013).
11. PHH is a New Jersey Corporation with its principal place of business located at 1 Mortgage Way, Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054. A corporation is a citizen of the state where it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business.9 Therefore, for diversity purposes, PHH is a citizen of New Jersey.
12. Because Plaintiffs are citizens of Texas and Defendant is not a citizen of Texas, complete diversity of citizenship exists between Defendant and Plaintiffs.
B. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
13. As noted above, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, quiet title, and injunctive relief with respect to the Property. When this type of relief is sought, the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the property at issue.10 The value of the Property is at least $175,377.11 Therefore, based on the relief Plaintiffs seek in the Amended Petition, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
IV. VENUE
14. Venue for this removal is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, because this district and division includes Harris County, Texas, which is the location of the pending State Court action.12
V. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
15. Written Notice of Removal will be provided to Plaintiffs and filed with the District Clerk of Harris County, Texas.
9 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 88-90 (2005).
10 Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Knox, 351 F. App’x 844, 848 (5th Cir. 2009); Waller v. Pro Ins. Corp., 296 F.2d 545, 547 (5th Cir. 1961).
11 See Harris County Appraisal District Summary attached as Exhibit B. The Court may take judicial notice of this document because it is a public record and the information it provides is readily ascertainable and the source—the Harris County Appraisal District—cannot reasonably be questioned. See Funk v. Stryker, 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011).
12 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); 28 U.S.C. § 124(b)(2) (stating that the Houston Division of the Southern District includes Harris County).
16. In the event that Plaintiffs seek to remand this case, or the Court considers remand sua sponte, Defendants respectfully request the opportunity to submit such additional argument or evidence in support of removal as may be necessary.
WHEREFORE, having satisfied the requirements for removal, Defendants give notice that Cause No. 2022-10621, originally filed in the 61st Judicial District, Harris County, Texas, has been removed to this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Brian A. Paino
BRIAN A. PAINO
State Bar No. 24065862
bpaino@mcglinchey.com
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD
6688 N. Central Expressway, Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75206
Telephone: (214) 445-2445
Facsimile: (214) 445-2450
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 18, 2022, a copy of the above and foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court. Notice of this filing has been forwarded to all parties, by and through their attorneys of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system and/or via email.
Via E-Mail
Rhonda S. Ross
Texas Bar I.D. 17299600
121 East 12th Street #6
Houston, Texas 77008
rhonda@rhondarossattorney.com
/s/ Brian A. Paino
BRIAN A. PAINO
Widow Betty Rex’s Reverse Mortgage: Notice of Acceleration: Death: Non-Suit: Federal Foreclosure
Foreclosure Bounty Hunters Mackie Wolf grew tired of State Court foreclosure and filed again in Federal Court before Outlaw Judge Hughes.
Wall Street’s Catamount Properties Invokes LIT’s Legal Declarations Averring Rampant TX Title Deed Fraud
Plaintiff was not a party to the deed of trust or loan agreement upon which the foreclosure sale of the subject property was based.
Anthony Welch of Superior Consulting Group and Karlton Woodson Boomerang Into Court Pro Se
Judge Hoyt’s recent dismissal: Non-party Karlton Woodson is a co-signatory to the Deed of Trust, but is not an obligor under the Note.
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00896
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
| Superior Consulting Group et al v. PHH Mortgage Corporation Assigned to: Judge Kenneth M Hoyt
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Superior Consulting Group | represented by | Rhonda Shedrick Ross , I Law Offices of Rhonda S. Ross Texas 121 East 12th St., Unit 6 Houston Houston, TX 77008 281-216-8778 Email: rhonda@rhondarossattorney.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Tracey Woodson | represented by | Rhonda Shedrick Ross , I (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| PHH Mortgage Corporation | represented by | Brian A Paino McGlinchey Stafford 18201 Von Karman Ave Suite 350 Irvine, CA 92612 949-381-5914 Email: bpaino@mcglinchey.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. | represented by | Brian A Paino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 03/18/2022 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 61st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, case number 2022-10621 (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number BTXSDC-27903795) filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – State Court File, # 2 Exhibit B – Harris County CAD, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Supplement)(Paino, Brian) (Entered: 03/18/2022) |
| 03/26/2022 | 2 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference by Telephone and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Counsel who filed or removed the action is responsible for placing the conference call and insuring that all parties are on the line. The call shall be placed to (713)250-5613. Telephone Conference set for 8/11/2022 at 09:00 AM before Judge Kenneth M Hoyt.(Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(chorace) (Entered: 03/26/2022) |
