LIT COMMENTARY
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY IS A WRECKING BALL
Below, you are about to read a shocking response and objection to a Report and Recommendation by “you’re only a magistrate judge”, as filed by Shelley Hopkins of BDF Hopkins – counsel for US Bank – which misapplies the law. It is also alarming to see that on the very same day, the EDTX Magistrate Judge recalling her opinion, leading LIT to assume she was erroneously persuaded by BDF Hopkins pleading.
What is even more alarming and disturbing when reviewing this case and the legal authorities cited to by BDF Hopkins, is that Federal courts and Appellate Courts are misapplying and misinterpreting state law.
As LIT has argued, the $75k removal sum is absurd, and snap removals by foreclosure mill lawyers have presented state law cases about Citizens property rights to federal courts.
They, in turn, have been allowed to issue legally deficient opinions, which then snowball as legal precedent, resulting in the loss of homesteads for many Citizens in Texas and beyond. This case is a prime example.
Austin creditor rights lawyer Mark Hopkins, husband of counsel here, Shelley Hopkins, was recently shunned by the Texas Supreme Court for presenting similar baseless arguments to what we witness here – for PNC Bank, in another post 2008 wrongful foreclosure battle. See; PNC Mortg. v. Howard, 668 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. 2023).
By federal district and appellate judges interfering with State Law, this has allowed Wall St lenders, investors and the financial services industry in general to obtain financial windfalls at the expense of the average American family, who are thrown out of their homes onto the street, and left financially ruined for many years.
LIT: One fact is for sure, Joanna Burke will not be one of those unfortunate victims.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) CAN STOP THESE ‘LEGAL ERRORS’
As LIT has witnessed not only in these proceedings, but many final opinions which wreck citizens lives and liberties, many of these ‘legal errors’ as authored into opinions, and which become binding precedent can be caught at the drafting stage.
In short, AI can easily address and resolve these legal mistakes and/or misapplications of the law.
AI will not be able to assert whether or not the opinion was intentionally manipulated or if it was human mistake, but it will ensure justice and the law is correctly applied.
Perhaps that is why the judiciary have been so quick to denounce artificial intelligence as unreliable and untrained in the art of the law.
These are early days, and AI is still learning, but it has and is continually being trained to perform legal work as more legal services vendors roll out solutions – and, dare we say it – the court and administration itself integrates AI into its every day workplace.
LIT predicts a time when courts will be streamlined, justice won’t take decades to be resolved and AI dominates legal opinion writing to ensure justice is applied equally and fairly, for all.
KEY DATES, EVENTS AND TIMELINE
The relevant history and background are as follows:
1. On March 27, 2015, U.S. Bank obtained its first Home Equity Foreclosure Order in an expedited Rule 736 proceedings in Cause No. 429-00150-2015;
2. In order to stop the foreclosure under that Home Equity Foreclosure Order, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants on June 1, 2015 in Cause No. 429- 02140-2015.
3. Plaintiffs’ claims in that suit were dismissed with prejudice and the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, Rodriguez v. Nationstar Mort., LLC, No. 05-16-01399-CV, 2018 WL 2926808 (Tex. App.–Dallas, June 7, 2018, no. pet.).
See Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at Exhibit B, Doc. 25-3;
4. LIT; Missing from BDF Hopkins answer – details of the 2020 order, specifically the prior litigation – see; 736 proceedings in 2019; In Re: Order of Foreclosure Concerning 2904 White Oak Drive, Plano, TX 75074 Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 736 Petitioner: U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee, Successor in Interesst to Bank of America National Association, as Trustee, Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-19 Respondent(s): Antonia Rodriguez and Danny Rodriguez, Case No. 429-05975-2019
This case was filed on 10/24/2019.
4. As the prior foreclosure order was vacated by Rule 736.11, U.S. Bank then filed and obtained another Home Equity Foreclosure Order on January 6, 2020 in expedited Rule 736 proceedings in Cause No. 429-05975-2019;
5. In order to stop the foreclosure under that Jan. 6, 2020 Order, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants on June 1, 2022 in Cause No. 471-02716-2022.
6. Defendants had the option to elect to file yet another Rule 736 expedited proceeding after resolution of this suit – which could have been once again vacated by the filing of a separate independent suit to contest that expedited foreclosure order, however frivolous.
LIT: IMPORTANTLY, THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO SO. (As admitted by BDF Hopkins, a counterclaim is not a 736 proceeding, so when the order of foreclosure was received on Jan 6, 2020, the 4 year statute of limitation to foreclose starts to run).
7. “Not wanting to risk Plaintiffs utilizing the tools provided by Rule 736.11, Defendants chose to proceed with counterclaims in this proceeding.”
NEXT UP: THE CONTRADICTION BY SHELLEY HOPKINS in SECTION B.
8. “Further, U.S. Bank is, in reality, precluded from proceeding with foreclosure under the prior home equity foreclosure order from 2020 because Plaintiffs filed this suit….The filing of this suit by Plaintiffs stayed the enforcement of that prior Home Equity Foreclosure Order.”
LIT: That is not true. Let’s recap; after BDF Hopkins obtained the Jan. 2020 order of foreclosure, they proceeded with noticing a non judicial foreclosure for June 2022.
This was defended by the homeowners in their suit in state court, wherein they asked for a TRO and permanent injunction – recognizing that BDF Hopkins already hold an order of foreclosure based off a 736 suit.
In short, the latest state court lawsuit by the homeowners was not defending a 736 lawsuit, they were stopping a foreclosure based on the 2020 order.
Whilst there are orders and case law in federal court which interpret the statute as the homeowners may file a new lawsuit to stop foreclosure forever more in state court – applying 736’s no res judicata allowance – and which BDF Hopkins relies upon as legal authority here – this would lead to absurd results.
See; Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Robin Singh Educ. Servs., Inc., 799 F.3d 437, 457 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Litigation over a controversy must eventually come to an end.”)
More realistic is the law and legal authorities where a lender/servicer is only allowed one bite at the citizens homestead after acceleration, in order to foreclose.
In the alternative, here the homeowners failed to comply with 736.11, specifically as LIT recently pointed out in the Dorman case, they had 10 days after filing suit to file their motion to vacate;
See; In re Breitling, No. 05-17-00043-CV, at *4 (Tex. App. Jan. 30, 2017) (“it was not filed within ten days of filing the independent lawsuit”).
Here, plaintiffs did not file such a motion by the time BDF Hopkins appeared and removed the civil action, which was on Jun 16/17 – more than 10 days after the lawsuit was filed by the homeowners.
As such, the time to foreclose by BDF ends after 4 years.
Jan 6, 2020 – Jan 6, 2024 is 4 years.
Allowing for the 60-day stay in this court to find counsel, that would extend to Mar. 6, 2024 and assuming there was a 14-day TRO in place prior to snap removal, that would mean as of Mar 20, 2024 the Defendants and BDF Hopkins are time-barred from proceeding with foreclosure.
Remember, no automatic stay (736) applies, and there is no injunction preventing Defendants from foreclosing during these proceedings. As such, they are time-barred.
Defendants Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America National Association, as Trustee, Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee (“U.S. Bank”) and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper (“Mr. Cooper”) (collectively “Defendants”)
file this Objection to the portion of the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 49] recommending dismissal with prejudice of Defendants’ counterclaims with prejudice based upon res judicata.
In support thereof, Defendants would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
I. SUMMARY
1. On March 14, 2024, the United States Magistrate issued her Report and Recommendation, recommending dismissal with prejudice of all of Defendants’ counterclaims.
See Doc. 49 at P. 13.
The Magistrate reasoned that for the same reasons that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata, so too are Defendants’ counterclaims for breach of contract for non-judicial foreclosure, judicial foreclosure and equitable subrogation. Id. However, this conclusion is opposite of Texas law for the reasons stated below:
a. Defendants’ prior home equity foreclosure order was entered at the end of an expedited Tex. R. Civ. P. 736 proceeding.
An order granting or denying a home equity foreclosure order initiated under Rule 736 has no preclusive effect and does not operate as a bar to further home equity order or to a judicial proceeding for foreclosure.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.9.; also see Burciaga v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 871 F.3d 380, 383 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.9);
b. Even if the expedited Rule 736 foreclosure order precludes Defendants seeking new judgment for foreclosure (it does not), Plaintiffs’ filing of this lawsuit operated to vacate that prior home equity foreclosure order.
See Tex.R. Civ. P. 736.11; also see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Murphy, 458 S.W.3d 912, 914 (Tex. 2015);
c. Finally, to the extent the Court looks solely to the prior litigation and holds that the foreclosure claim was compulsory in that matter, a foreclosure cause of action is not a compulsory counterclaim.
Kaspar v. Keller, 466 S.W.2d 326, 327-29 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1971).
II.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
2. While Defendants agree with the majority of the Magistrate’s findings, Defendants respectfully disagree that res judicata bars Defendants’ foreclosure-based counterclaims.
See Doc. 49 at P. 12-13.
Central to the analysis of the claims is the Magistrate’s reasoning is that having brought this claim previously and obtained a home equity foreclosure order, Defendants are free to move forward with foreclosure under its prior order.
See Doc. 49 at P. 13.
However, as the prior order was an expedited order under Rule 736, the order does not bar Defendants’ claims, nor are foreclosure claims compulsory counterclaims.
3. In recommending dismissal of all of Defendants’ counterclaims, the Court reasoned that as the counterclaims were based upon the same nucleolus of operative facts as Plaintiffs’ prior state court lawsuit, Defendants could have brought their breach of contract claims in the state court suit.
See Doc. 49 at P. 12.
Continuing, the Court reasoned that as the issues before the court were previously decided (and affirmed) by a court of competent jurisdiction, the state court’s lawsuit operatives with preclusive effect on this suit and the claims herein. Id.
The Court went on to find that, “the state court’s decision should stand, and Defendants should be permitted to proceed with foreclosure pursuant to the state court’s foreclosure order.”
See Doc. 49 at P. 13.
4. However, there is a distinction overlooked by the Court in its analysis, that being that the Plaintiffs’ prior state court lawsuit and the suit wherein the home equity foreclosure order was obtained were not one in the same.
A foreclosure order from an expedited 736 proceeding has no preclusive effect and is in fact vacated by the filing of a separate independent lawsuit after its entry.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.9 and 736.11.
The relevant history and background are as follows:
a. On March 27, 2015, U.S. Bank obtained its first Home Equity Foreclosure Order in an expedited Rule 736 proceedings in Cause No. 429-00150-2015;
b. In order to stop the foreclosure under that Home Equity Foreclosure Order, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants on June 1, 2015 in Cause No. 429- 02140-2015.
Plaintiffs’ claims in that suit were dismissed with prejudice and the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, Rodriguez v. Nationstar Mort., LLC, No. 05-16-01399-CV, 2018 WL 2926808 (Tex. App.–Dallas, June 7, 2018, no. pet.).
See Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at Exhibit B, Doc. 25-3;
c. As the prior foreclosure order was vacated by Rule 736.11, U.S. Bank then filed and obtained another Home Equity Foreclosure Order on January 6, 2020 in expedited Rule 736 proceedings in Cause No. 429-05975-2019;
See Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at Exhibit C, Doc. 25-3.
A. Rule 736 Home Equity Foreclosure Order Has No Preclusive Effect.
5. First, the Court’s analysis is incorrect in finding that the Home Equity Foreclosure Order bars its counterclaims, because a foreclosure order is a Rule 736 proceeding that has no preclusive effect.
See Doc. 49 at P. 13-14. Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.9.
The prior expedited proceedings for foreclosure were clearly brought by U.S. Bank under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736.
An order obtained in a Rule 736 proceeding is not a judgment, and the grant or denial of the application is not subject to a motion for rehearing, a motion for new trial, a bill of review, or an appeal.
Tex.R. Civ. P. 736.8(c).
An order granting or denying a home equity foreclosure order initiated under Rule 736 has no preclusive effect and does not operate as a bar to further home equity order or to a judicial proceeding for foreclosure.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.9.; also see Burciaga, 871 F.3d at 383 (quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.9).
6. Texas Rule 736.9 states, “An order is without prejudice and has no res judicata, collateral estoppel, estoppel by judgment, or other effect in any other judicial proceeding.”
The foreclosure order obtained by U.S. Bank does not preclude it seeking a new order or judgment and therefore Defendants’ counterclaims are not barred by res judicata.
B. Plaintiffs’ Filing Suit Stayed and Vacated Prior Home Equity Foreclosure Order.
7. Further, U.S. Bank is, in reality, precluded from proceeding with foreclosure under the prior home equity foreclosure order from 2020 because Plaintiffs filed this suit.
Rule 736 specifies that if a party files an independent suit challenging a Rule 736 foreclosure order before 5:00 p.m. on the Monday before the scheduled foreclosure sale, the Rule 736 proceeding or order is automatically stayed.
Id. at 736.11(a).
Once the Rule 736 court is notified that an independent suit has been filed challenging the Foreclosure Order, the court is required to dismiss the Rule 736 proceeding or vacate the foreclosure order. Id. at 736.11(c).
8. The filing of this suit by Plaintiffs stayed the enforcement of that prior Home Equity Foreclosure Order.
Because the Plaintiffs’ loan is a Texas Home Equity Loan, U.S. Bank is required to obtain a Court order to foreclose.
Texas Constitution Art. XVI § 50(a)(6)(D), Tex. R. Civ. P. 735.1(a).
However, Defendants are not limited to Rule 736 in order to obtain that foreclosure order.
As stated by the Texas Rules, “A Rule 736 order is not a substitute for a judgment for judicial foreclosure, but any loan agreement, contract, or lien that may be foreclosed using Rule 736 procedures may also be foreclosed by judgment in an action for judicial foreclosure.”
Tex. R. Civ. P. 735.3.
Therefore, Defendants had the option to elect to file yet another Rule 736 expedited proceeding after resolution of this suit – which could have been once again vacated by the filing of a separate independent suit to contest that expedited foreclosure order, however frivolous.
Not wanting to risk Plaintiffs utilizing the tools provided by Rule 736.11, Defendants chose to proceed with counterclaims in this proceeding.
Res judicata does not bar Defendants from its election to file suit for breach of contract allowing non-judicial foreclosure or for judicial foreclosure.
Burciaga at 383.
9. The Plaintiffs’ filing of this suit automatically stayed Defendants’ ability to proceed with execution of that Home Equity Foreclosure order.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.11.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736.11(a), provides
that a foreclosure proceeding is “automatically stayed if a [payor under the loan] files a separate, original proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction that puts in issue any matter related to the origination, servicing, or enforcement of the loan agreement, contract, or lien sought to be foreclosed …”.
Murphy, 458 S.W.3d at 914; also see Morse v. Ditech Financial, 2017 WL 7051072 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2017); McBee v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2021 WL 8082643 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 2, 2021); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Castrellon, 852 Fed.Appx. 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2021)
(stating, “This litigation course effectively blocked the Bank from exercising foreclosure for the duration of that dispute. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.11(d)
(“If the automatic stay under this rule is in effect, any foreclosure sale of the property is void.”)).
10. It is clear that U.S. Bank or any Defendant, could not and cannot proceed with the prior Home Equity Foreclosure Order from the Rule 736 expedited foreclosure proceedings.
Tex.R. Civ. P. 736.11; Murphy at 914.
As that Order is not enforceable, and has no preclusive effect, Defendants are not barred by res judicata for seeking their foreclosure counterclaims.
C. Foreclosure Claims are Not Compulsory Counterclaims.
11. In recommending dismissal with prejudice of the counterclaims, the Court reasoned that given the application of res judicata to Plaintiffs’ claims, the same would thus apply to Defendants’ foreclosure counterclaim.
See Doc. 49 at P. 13.
Holding that they are barred by res judicata.
However, this is squarely contrary to Texas law as a Rule 736 order has no preclusive effect, the prior order is now stayed and because foreclosure claims are not compulsory counterclaims.
See U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Lamell, No. 19-cv-2402, 2021 WL 954848 * 12, n. 5 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2021) citing Casterline v. OneWest Bank, FSB, Number 13-17-00118-CV, 2018 WL 1755821, at *5 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi-Edinburg, Apr. 12, 2018) (discussing Kaspar, 466 S.W.2d at 327-29); see also Steptoe v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 464 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2015).
Defendants were not required to bring foreclosure claims as a counterclaim in Plaintiffs first lawsuit and therefore, Defendants’ counterclaims in this suit are not barred by res judicata.
12. While typically, a party is required to bring a compulsory counterclaim within an initial lawsuit or risk having the claim barred in the future, the Kaspar rule (a Texas law doctrine) is an exception to the compulsory counterclaim rule that applies to secured transactions.
See, Kaspar, 466 S.W.2d at 329.
The Fifth Circuit has found that the Kaspar rule does in fact create an exception to compulsory counterclaims in secured transactions.
Douglass v. NCNB Tex. Nat’l Bank, 979 F.2d 1128, 1130 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Kaspar, 466 S.W.2d at 329).
13. When the security instrument in a home-equity loan contains a power of sale provision, the lender has a choice of remedies – meaning that a lender can seek either expedited order of foreclosure through Rule 736 proceeding, or alternatively seek the remedy of judicial foreclosure.
See, Steptoe, 464 S.W.3d at 429; Huston v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 988 F.Supp.2d 732, 740 (S.D. Tex. 2013)
(mortgagee was not required to assert a counterclaim in prior suit in order to preserve its foreclosure rights);
Douglass, 979 F.2d at 1130; see also Soin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. H–14–1861, 2014 WL 4386003, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2104)
(mortgagee was not required to seek enforcement of the Security Agreement as a compulsory counterclaim”).
14. Applying the Kaspar rule herein, Defendants were not required to file counterclaims for foreclosure in the prior lawsuit and its counterclaims herein are not barred by res judicata as there were not in fact compulsory in the first lawsuit.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to the reasons set out herein, Defendants Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America National Association, as Trustee, Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, respectfully request that the Court reconsider its ruling as to Defendants’ counterclaims and grant summary judgment for Defendants, along with any and all additional relief, whether at law or in equity, to which they may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Shelley L. Hopkins
Shelley L. Hopkins
State Bar No. 24036497
HOPKINS LAW, PLLC
2802 Flintrock Trace, Suite B103
Austin, Texas 78738
(512) 600-4320
BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER
TURNER & ENGEL, LLP – Of Counsel
ShelleyH@bdfgroup.com
shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com
Robert D. Forster, II
State Bar No. 24048470
BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER & ENGEL, LLP
4004 Belt Line Road, Ste. 100
Addison, Texas 75001
(972) 386-5040
RobertFO@bdfgroup.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 28th day of March 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system, and will send a true and correct copy to the following:
VIA EMAIL AND VIA REGULAR MAIL:
Danny Rodriguez Antonia Rodriguez
2904 White Oak
Plano, Texas 75074
rod2748@yahoo.com
Pro Se Plaintiffs
/s/ Shelley L. Hopkins
Shelley L. Hopkins
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00506-ALM-AGD
| Rodriguez, et al., v. Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, et al. Assigned to: District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III Referred to: Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 06/17/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 11/19/2023 | 48 | ORDER. Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 25 ). Pursuant to the court’s order (Dkt. # 32 ), the Final Pretrial Conference has been reset to December 7, 2023. Accordingly, the court finds that all deadlines in the present lawsuit should be abated until the court has an opportunity to consider the Motion for Summary Judgment and all relevant pleadings. It is therefore ORDERED that all deadlines in the present lawsuit are hereby ABATED until further notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett on 11/19/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 11/20/2023) |
| 03/14/2024 | 49 | ***WITHDRAWN PER DKT 53 .*** REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The court recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 25 ) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 10 ) and Defendants’ Counterclaim (Dkt. # 8 ) are barred by res judicata. Accordingly, the court recommends that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 10 ) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The court further recommends that Defendants’ Counterclaim (Dkt. # 8 ) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The court further recommends that the Motion to Strike (Dkt. # 46 ) should be GRANTED. Any request for relief not addressed by this report and recommendation should be denied as MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett on 3/14/2024. (jmb, ) Modified on 3/28/2024 (RPC). (Entered: 03/14/2024) |
| 03/22/2024 | 50 | ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez as to 49 Report and Recommendations. (JMB) (Entered: 03/26/2024) |
| 03/27/2024 | 51 | OBJECTION to 49 Report and Recommendations by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez. (RPC) (Entered: 03/27/2024) |
| 03/28/2024 | 52 | OBJECTION to 49 Report and Recommendations by Nationstar Mortgage LLC, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee. (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 03/28/2024) |
| 03/28/2024 | 53 | ORDER. The court hereby orders that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 49 ) be withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett on 3/28/2024. (RPC) (Entered: 03/28/2024) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 03/31/2024 15:07:45 |
8. Statute of limitations.
More than four years has passed since an acceleration of the subject loan without foreclosure.https://t.co/JVexa7UgE7
p.s. case shopped by the Wolves by filin’ in Fed. court, assigned to Judge David Hittner/ Magistrate Judge “Are You a Criminal” Bray— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) March 30, 2024
Rodriguez v. Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19,
U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee
(4:22-cv-00506)
District Court, E.D. Texas
JUN 16, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 18, 2022
Feb 28, 2023
Last update, Feb. 17
It’s Bobby and Shelley back for U.S. Bank in this foreclosure case, Mark Hopkins is AWOL and Matt Graham is off doing personal injury stuff.
ORDER GRANTING 35 Plaintiffs Antonia Rodriguez and Danny Rodriguez’s Motion for Continuance. It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion (Dkt. 35 ) is GRANTED.
The Plaintiffs have until the earlier of 60 days or Monday, October 16, 2023, to secure counsel. If Plaintiffs secure counsel, plaintiffs must notify the court within 10 days.
It is further ORDERED that during the pendency of Plaintiffs’ attempts to secure counsel, the case, Civil No. 4:22-CV-00506, is STAYED.
The stay will be lifted on the earlier of the date upon which Plaintiffs notify the court that they have secured counsel or Monday, October 16, 2023.
Signed by Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett on 08/17/2023. (jmb) (Entered: 08/18/2023)
Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)
(Lane, Robert) (Entered: 05/22/2023)
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00506-ALM-AGD
| Rodriguez et al v. Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee et al Assigned to: District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III Referred to: Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 06/17/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 12/01/2022 | 22 | NOTICE of Designation of Mediator, Jane McEldowney with McEldowney Mediation, LLC, filed by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez. (Lane, Robert) (Entered: 12/01/2022) |
| 12/02/2022 | 23 | ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MEDIATION: Jane McEldowney added as Mediator. The mediation conference shall be conducted on or before January 30, 2023 Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak on 12/2/2022. (mmc) (Entered: 12/05/2022) |
| 02/06/2023 | 24 | ***WITHDRAWN PER DKT 29 . PLEASE DISREGARD.***Joint MOTION Abate by Nationstar Mortgage LLC, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hopkins, Shelley) (Attachment 1 replaced on 2/7/2023) (baf, ). Modified on 5/26/2023 (jmb). (Entered: 02/06/2023) |
| 02/17/2023 | 25 | MOTION for Summary Judgment by Nationstar Mortgage LLC, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Hopkins, Shelley) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/21/2023: # 5 Text of Proposed Order) (rpc, ). (Entered: 02/17/2023) |
| 05/22/2023 | 26 | Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lane, Robert) (Entered: 05/22/2023) |
| 05/26/2023 | 27 | NOTICE by Nationstar Mortgage LLC, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee re 24 Joint MOTION Abate Withdrawing Joint Motion to Abate (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 05/26/2023) |
| 05/26/2023 | 28 | NOTICE by Nationstar Mortgage LLC, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Non-Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 05/26/2023) |
| 05/26/2023 | 29 | ORDER. Defendants Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper and Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America National Association, as Trustee, Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee have filed a Notice Withdrawing Joint Motion to Abate [Dkt. 27 ], wherein Defendants request to withdraw their pending motion for abatement [Dkt. 24 ] on the grounds that the motion is now moot. Having considered the Notice, the Court hereby ORDERS the Joint Motion to Abate [Dkt. 24 ] be WITHDRAWN.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak on 05/26/2023. (jmb, ) (Entered: 05/26/2023) |
| 06/07/2023 | 30 | ORDER REGARDING EXHIBITS. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 06/07/2023. (jmb) (Entered: 06/07/2023) |
| 06/15/2023 | 31 | Unopposed MOTION to Continue all Remaining Deadlines by Nationstar Mortgage LLC, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 06/15/2023) |
| 06/26/2023 | 32 | ORDER GRANTING 31 JOINT MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. The court GRANTS the continuance (Dkt. # 31 ) and SETS this case for a Final Pretrial Conference on December 7, 2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett on 06/26/2023. (jmb) (Entered: 06/26/2023) |
| 06/26/2023 | 33 | ORDER granting 26 Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. It is hereby ORDERED that Robert C. Lane, Joshua D. Gordon, and The Lane Law Firm PLLC are permitted to WITHDRAW as Counsel for the Plaintiffs. It is further ORDERED that the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a response to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 25 ) is August 28, 2023. If the Plaintiffs hire new counsel, they shall notify the court within ten (10) days of doing so. Attorney Joshua David Gordon and Robert Chamless Lane terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett on 06/26/2023. (jmb) (Entered: 06/26/2023) |
| 07/05/2023 | 34 | ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT by Antonia Rodriguez as to Orders 32 and 33 . (jmb) (Entered: 07/05/2023) |
| 08/16/2023 | 35 | MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez. (jmb) (Entered: 08/16/2023) |
| 08/17/2023 | 36 | ORDER GRANTING 35 Plaintiffs Antonia Rodriguez and Danny Rodriguez’s Motion for Continuance. It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion (Dkt. 35 ) is GRANTED. The Plaintiffs have until the earlier of 60 days or Monday, October 16, 2023, to secure counsel. If Plaintiffs secure counsel, plaintiffs must notify the court within 10 days. It is further ORDERED that during the pendency of Plaintiffs’ attempts to secure counsel, the case, Civil No. 4:22-CV-00506, is STAYED. The stay will be lifted on the earlier of the date upon which Plaintiffs notify the court that they have secured counsel or Monday, October 16, 2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett on 08/17/2023. (jmb) (Entered: 08/18/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/06/2023 16:55:13 |
Summary Judgment
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00506-ALM-CAN
| Rodriguez et al v. Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee et al Assigned to: District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III Referred to: Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 06/17/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 09/26/2022 | 20 | SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/29/2023 at 09:00 AM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. Amended Pleadings due by 12/19/2022. Discovery due by 3/27/2023. Joinder of Parties due by 10/25/2022. Mediation Completion due by 1/30/2023. Designation of Mediator due by 12/1/2022, Motions due by 2/17/2023. Proposed Findings of Fact due by 6/15/2023. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 5/30/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak on 9/26/2022. (rpc, ) (Entered: 09/27/2022) |
| 09/26/2022 | 21 | ORDER. Telephonic Status Conference set for 12/13/2022 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak on 9/26/2022. (rpc, ) (Entered: 09/27/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 10/09/2022 17:59:44 |
Lane Law and Texas Lawyer Christopher Carlin West part ways. He’s off their cases.
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00506-ALM-CAN
| Rodriguez et al v. Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee et al Assigned to: District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III Referred to: Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 06/17/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 08/17/2022 | 14 | Agreed MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically or Via Video at the Rule 16 Management Conference by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lane, Robert) (Entered: 08/17/2022) |
| 08/22/2022 | 15 | REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 08/22/2022) |
| 08/23/2022 | 16 | ORDER granting 14 Motion to Appear Telephonically or Via Video at the Rule 16 Management Conference. The Rule 16 management conference is hereby converted to a videoconference rather than in person and is set for Tuesday, September 13, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. The Parties will connect to the videoconference no later than 12:55 p.m. via a link that will be provided by email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak on 8/23/2022. (mmc) (Entered: 08/23/2022) |
| 09/16/2022 | 17 | ORDER. This case was set for Rule 16 management conference by video on Tuesday, September 13, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. [Dkt. 16]. Due to a conflict, the Court hereby reschedules the conference. Accordingly, It is therefore ORDERED that the Rule 16 management conference by video is rescheduled for Thursday, September 22, 2022, at 3:30 p.m. The Parties will connect to the videoconference no later than 3:25 p.m. via a link that will be provided by email. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak on 9/16/2022. (kls, ) (Entered: 09/16/2022) |
| 09/21/2022 | 18 | Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw CHRISTOPHER WEST AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lane, Robert) (Entered: 09/21/2022) |
| 09/21/2022 | 19 | ORDER granting 18 Motion to Withdraw CHRISTOPHER WEST AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak on 9/21/2022. (rpc, ) (Entered: 09/22/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/25/2022 23:16:07 |
No new cases bein’ filed by BDF Hopkins as they maintain a low profile during the unexpected and long summer recess, but they are maintaining their current cases, like this one.
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00506-ALM-CAN
| Rodriguez et al v. Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee et al Assigned to: District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III Referred to: Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 06/17/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 06/20/2022 | 4 | ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak for all pretrial proceedings. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 6/20/2022. (mmc) (Entered: 06/21/2022) |
| 06/22/2022 | 5 | ORDER AND ADVISORY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak on 6/22/2022. (mmc) (Entered: 06/22/2022) |
| 06/22/2022 | 6 | CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 06/22/2022) |
| 06/27/2022 | 7 | ANSWER to 2 Complaint by U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee.(Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 06/27/2022) |
| 06/27/2022 | 8 | COUNTERCLAIM against Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez, filed by U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Hopkins, Shelley) Modified text on 6/28/2022 (mmc). (Entered: 06/27/2022) |
| 07/18/2022 | 9 | NOTICE by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez – Certificate of Interested Parties (Lane, Robert) (Entered: 07/18/2022) |
| 07/18/2022 | 10 | AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 – Deed of Trust, # 2 Exhibit 2 – FMV)(Lane, Robert) (Entered: 07/18/2022) |
| 07/18/2022 | 11 | ANSWER to 8 Counterclaim, by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez.(Lane, Robert) (Entered: 07/18/2022) |
| 07/28/2022 | 12 | ANSWER to 10 Amended Complaint by U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee.(Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 07/28/2022) |
| 07/28/2022 | 13 | ORDER GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 8/31/2022. Rule 16 Management Conference set for 9/13/2022 at 01:00 PM in Ctrm A01 (Sherman – Annex) before Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak on 7/28/2022. (mmc) (Entered: 07/28/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 07/31/2022 09:01:49 |
If y’all need a reminder of Judge David Hittner’s order, here it is.
Thereafter, Judge Gregg Costa refused to apologize when the Priester’s returned to the 5th Circuit.
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Sherman)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00506-ALM
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
| Rodriguez et al v. Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee et al Assigned to: District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 06/17/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Antonia Rodriguez | represented by | Robert Chamless Lane Lane Law Firm – Houston 6200 Savoy St. Suite 1150 Houston, TX 77036 713.595.8200 Fax: 713.595.8201 Email: chip.lane@lanelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher Carlin West Lane Law Firm – Houston 6200 Savoy St. Suite 1150 Houston, TX 77036 713-595-8200 Fax: 713-595-8201 Email: chris.west@lanelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoshua David Gordon The Lane Law Firm 6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 1150 Houston, TX 77036 713-595-8200 Fax: 713-595-8201 Email: joshua.gordon@lanelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Danny Rodriguez | represented by | Robert Chamless Lane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher Carlin West (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoshua David Gordon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America National Association, as Trustee … |
represented by | Robert Davis Forster , II Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP – Addison 15000 Surveyor Blvd, Suite 100 Addison, TX 75001 972-340-7948 Fax: 972-341-0734 Email: robertfo@bdfgroup.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDShelley Luan Hopkins Hopkins Law PLLC – Austin 3 Lakeway Centre Ct Suite 110 Austin, TX 78734 512-600-4320 Email: shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Nationstar Mortgage LLC doing business as Mr. Cooper |
represented by | Shelley Luan Hopkins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert Davis Forster , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 06/17/2022 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to B from 471st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas, case number 471-02716-2022. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATXEDC-8979516), filed by Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-19, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to B. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 06/17/2022) |
| 06/17/2022 | 2 | ***PETITION ORIGINALLY FILED IN STATE COURT*** Complaint against All Defendants, filed by Antonia Rodriguez, Danny Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(mmc) (Entered: 06/17/2022) |
| 06/17/2022 | 3 | ***ANSWER ORIGINALLY FILED IN STATE COURT*** ANSWER to 2 Complaint by U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(mmc) (Entered: 06/17/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 06/18/2022 10:41:53 |
Rodriguez v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 05-16-01399-CV
(Tex. App. June 7, 2018, Authored by Justice David Evans)
REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 18, 2022
Rosie Coleman versus Deutsche Bank since the 2008 Financial Crisis Arrives in Court in 2023
Represented by The Lane Law Firm since at least 2013, this is a decade-long client relationship. Lane Law is citing to prior defenses.
It’s All In the Written Word for Judge David Evans Review
The court having considered the requests has decided that all items should be set for written submission. If after written submission the court determines oral argument is needed, the court will schedule the same.
Pro Se Filers Face Capricious Clerks and Ambiguous Local Rules At the Federal Fifth Circuit
Pro se’s are being held to a higher standard than the laws and rules require and/or not being applied in a consistent manner. Pro se’s should not be penalized for court errors and capricious clerks.
