Appellate Judges

The Shack Train is Pullin’ Into the 14th Court of Appeals Puffin’ Smoke for Indicted Tony Hutchison

Anthony Hutchison systematically over-billed HISD and inflated bills for service. Ray L Shackelford is a close friend, associate and lawyer.

ANTHONY L HUTCHISON vs. KENSINGTON STATION, LLC

(14-23-00391-CV)

JUN 20, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: AUG 5, 2023
AUG 5, SEP 28, NOV. 12, DEC 15,  2023
JAN 18, MAR 2 15,
APR 27, MAY 17 27, 2024

NO OPINION HAS BEEN RELEASED BY COA14 TO DATE AND THERE’S NO STAY OR INJUNCTION PREVENTING FORECLOSURE

Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.

There’s never been an injunction, stay, bond or rule 11 agreement or similar which would prevent foreclosure of this property.

Mark Cronenwett of the Foreclosure Wolves was the controlling active lawyer in federal court proceedings before Judge Hanks, but he’s never persecuted Anthony Hutchison the way he has an 85 year old widow with time-barred attempts at non-judicial foreclosure.

At the time of this update, we note there’s no opinion released from COA14. We were checkin’ real property records for any substitute deed, but none exists. We also checked May’s list of scheduled foreclosures. NADA.

However, we did note that Vihn Truong decided to file an affidavit claiming he’s owed $66k for works done on the property, but he’d change his mind and release that filing a couple of weeks later in March of 2024.

This case is scheduled for submission without oral argument on the briefs and record on Tuesday, February 20, 2024. Subject to change by the Court, the members of the panel to which the case will be submitted are Justice Jewell, Justice Bourliot and Justice Poissant.

Brief filed – oral argument not requested – Appellee

Notably Guerra Days takes second chair, with first chair now Tomlinson.

Brief filed – oral argument requested by Eric Days of Guerra Days for Hutchison.

Motion for extension of time to file brief disposed – GRANTED – due Mon., Nov. 27, 2023.

LIT ARTICLE: THE CAROLINE ALLISON TEAM (HAR REALTOR)

AFTER LIT ARTICLE: THE CAROLINE ALLISON TEAM (HAR REALTOR) YOUTUBE CHANNEL

202364003 –

HUTCHISON, ANTHONY L vs. FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 

(Court 125, JUDGE KYLE CARTER)

SEP 20, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 29, 2023
SEP 29, NOV 12, DEC 15, 2023

LIT: Due to the COA Appeal, this case is dead.

Above is the date LIT Last updated or visited this article.

Hutchinson v. Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp., Civil Action H-22-2294

(Court 125, JUDGE LEE ROSENTHAL)

Civil Action H-22-2294

08-10-2022

ORDER

 REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 29, 2023

LEE H. ROSENTHAL CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Anthony Hutchinson, a homeowner and borrower, sued Franklin Credit Management Corporation, which holds the secondary lien mortgage loan on the property, in state court.

Hutchinson sought an injunction to stop foreclosure.

Franklin Credit Management Corporation removed and moved to dismiss.

Hutchinson did not respond.

Hutchinson alleges that the first lienholder foreclosed on the property in February 2012, but after years of litigation, that foreclosure sale was rescinded and he paid off that first lien mortgage.

(Docket Entry No. 1-1 at 33).

In June 2018, Franklin renewed sending mortgagee statements.

Hutchinson sued Franklin in federal district court, alleging wrongful foreclosure and negligence, arguing that the rescission of the first lienholder’s foreclosure and the payment of that lien extinguished the second lien.

Another court in this district concluded that Franklin’s lien was revived when the first lienholder’s foreclosure sale was rescinded and granted summary judgment for Franklin.

Hutchinson v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation, No. 20-2198 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2022).

Hutchinson argues in this case that Franklin cannot foreclose because it did not provide notice to the first lienholder, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.

(Docket Entry No. 1-1 at 35).

This  argument is moot based on Hutchinson’s allegation, and Judge Hanks’s conclusion, that Hutchinson already paid off the first lien mortgage.

(Docket Entry No. 1-1 at 33).

Hutchinson’s claims also fail because junior lienholders do not have to provide notice of a foreclosure sale to senior lienholders under Texas law.

Kenneth D. Eichner, P.C. v. Dominguez, No. 14-18-00399-CV, 2020 Tex.App. LEXIS 1813, *9 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 3, 2020), rev’d on other grounds, 623 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. 2021); Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002(d).

The court grants the motion to dismiss with prejudice on the ground that Hutchinson has failed to state a claim and that amendment would be futile.

The court grants the motion for the additional reason that Hutchinson has failed to prosecute by not responding to the motion to dismiss.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Hutchison v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation

(4:20-cv-02198)

District Court, S.D. Texas (JUDGE GEORGE  HANKS JR)

 REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 29, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a wrongful foreclosure case.

Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Franklin Credit Management Corporation (“Franklin”).

Having carefully reviewed the motion, response, reply, summary judgment record, and applicable law, the Court will GRANT Franklin’s motion.

(Dkt. 20).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Franklin holds a secondary lien on a home that is owned by Plaintiff Anthony Hutchison (“Hutchison”).

(Dkt. 1-1 at p. 9).

The parties do not dispute that the primary lienholder foreclosed on the home in February of 2012 and that the foreclosure was rescinded in December of 2014.

(Dkt. 1-1 at p. 9; Dkt. 20 at p. 11).

In his live pleading, Hutchison alleges that Franklin’s secondary lien was extinguished by the rescinded foreclosure sale and that, despite “the lack of legal standing to foreclose on an extinguished lien,” Franklin “posted [Hutchison’s] homestead for foreclosure on June 2, 2020[.]”

(Dkt. 1-1 at p. 10).

Hutchison further alleges that Franklin did not send mortgage statements to him during the six years between the February 2012 foreclosure sale and June of 2018.

(Dkt. 1-1 at p. 10).

According to Hutchison, “Franklin renewed sending mortgage statements on or about June, 2018 alleging a principal mortgage balance of $56,292.30[.]”

(Dkt. 1-1 at p. 10).

Hutchison filed this lawsuit in state court, and Franklin removed it to this Court.

(Dkt. 1; Dkt. 1-1 at p. 7).

Hutchison’s live pleading asserts causes of action for wrongful foreclosure and negligence.

(Dkt. 1-1 at pp. 10–12).

Hutchison also requests that the Court permanently enjoin Franklin from foreclosing on the home.

(Dkt. 1-1 at p. 15).

Franklin has moved for summary judgment on all of Hutchison’s claims.

(Dkt. 20).

Hutchison has filed a response, but he has attached no evidence to that response.

(Dkt. 29).

Franklin has filed a reply brief.

(Dkt. 32).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant establishes that there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Disputes about material facts are genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” (1986).

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S. Ct.

The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if “the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.”

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986).

The movant may meet its burden by pointing out the absence of evidence supporting the non-movant’s case.

Duffy v. Leading Edge Products, Inc., 44 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 1995).

A party moving for summary judgment “must ‘demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,’ but need not negate the elements of the nonmovant’s case.”

Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam) (quoting Celotex, 106 S. Ct. at 2553).

“If the moving party fails to meet this initial burden, the motion must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant’s response.” Id.

If the moving party meets this burden, Rule 56(c) requires the nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and show by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, or other admissible evidence that specific facts exist over which there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.

The nonmovant “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (1986).

Generally, in reviewing the evidence “the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.”

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2110 (2000).

That said, however, the court resolves factual controversies in favor of the nonmovant “only when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.”

Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.

Rule 56 does not impose upon the Court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party’s opposition to summary judgment; evidence not referred to in the response to the motion for summary judgment is not properly before the Court, even if it exists in the summary judgment record.

Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003).

ANALYSIS

On this summary judgment record, Hutchison has not presented a triable fact issue.

A.                Wrongful foreclosure

Hutchison’s wrongful foreclosure claim fails for two independent reasons:

(1) no foreclosure sale stemming from Franklin’s lien has taken place;

and

(2) the rescinded 2012 foreclosure sale did not extinguish Franklin’s lien.

—There has been no foreclosure sale.

Under Texas law, “[a] claim for wrongful foreclosure requires that the property in question be sold at a foreclosure sale.”

Marsh v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 760 F. Supp. 2d 701, 708 (N.D. Tex. 2011) (citing Allied Capital Corp. v. Cravens, 67 S.W.3d 486, 492 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.)).

There is no evidence in the record showing that Franklin’s lien ever gave rise to a foreclosure sale; and the 2012 foreclosure sale, which stemmed from the primary lienholder’s lien, was rescinded in 2014.

Accordingly, Hutchison has no claim for wrongful foreclosure against any lienholder, including Franklin. Marsh, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 708

(“Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for wrongful foreclosure because no foreclosure sale has occurred.”).

—Franklin’s lien was not extinguished in 2012.

More fundamentally, Hutchison provides no support for his argument that the rescinded 2012 foreclosure sale extinguished Franklin’s lien.

Under Texas law, “[b]ecause title never passes between parties in a void foreclosure sale, the remedy is to place the parties in the same position they were before, as if the foreclosure had never taken place.”

Wesley v. Amerigo, Inc., No. 10-05-00041-CV, 2006 WL 22213, at *3 (Tex. App—Waco Jan. 4, 2006, no pet.);

see also Silliman v. Gammage, 55 Tex. 365 (1881);

Diversified, Inc. v. Walker, 702 S.W.2d 717, 721 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

It only makes sense that this principle would restore any extinguished junior liens upon rescission of a foreclosure sale, and Hutchison points to no authority excluding junior lienholders from this principle.

The Court concludes that Franklin’s lien was no longer extinguished as of December 2014, when the 2012 foreclosure sale was rescinded.

B.                Negligence

In setting out his negligence claim, Hutchison alleges that Franklin “failed to use reasonable care in communicating the correct status of [Hutchison’s] debt by failing to provide the correct information regarding [Hutchison’s] debt and payment history in a timely manner, such that [Hutchison] could have avoided foreclosure if not for [Franklin’s] delay.”

(Dkt. 1-1 at p. 11).

Hutchison argues that “[Franklin’s] conduct is negligent because it is in breach of its duties under the Texas Finance Code, Chapter 158.”

(Dkt. 1-1 at p. 11).

Hutchison also cites Federal Land Bank Association of Tyler v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1991), in which the Texas Supreme Court held that a bank can breach a common-law duty to use reasonable care in providing information to its customers or potential customers.

(Dkt. 1-1 at p. 11).

In its motion, Franklin argues that:

(1) Chapter 158 of the Texas Finance Code does not create a cause of action;

(2) any other negligence claim, to the extent that Hutchison is making one, is conclusively barred by the statute of limitations and the economic loss doctrine;

and

(3) Hutchison has no evidence to establish that Franklin breached a duty owed to Hutchison and that Franklin’s breach proximately caused injury to Hutchison.

(Dkt. 20 at pp. 11–14).

In his response, Hutchison—who, again, provides no summary judgment evidence of his own—regurgitates three paragraphs of his pleading with no citations to the summary judgment record and fails to engage with any of Franklin’s arguments.

(Dkt. 29 at pp. 4–5).

The Court will grant summary judgment on Hutchison’s negligence claim.

The two legal bases he specifically cites—Chapter 158 of the Texas Finance Code and the Texas Supreme Court’s Sloane opinion—are legally untenable; and, in any event, Hutchison has not cited to any evidence in the record to establish any element of his negligence claim.

—Chapter 158 of the Texas Finance Code

Caselaw supports Franklin’s argument that there is no private right of action under Chapter 158 of the Texas Finance Code.

Hutchinson v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 4:12- CV-3422, 2013 WL 5657822, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2013), aff’d, 575 Fed. App’x 443

(5th Cir. 2014).

Hutchison cites no caselaw to the contrary.

—The Texas Supreme Court’s Sloane opinion

Hutchison also cites the Texas Supreme Court’s Sloane opinion. Under Sloane, the elements of a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation are: (1) the representation is made by a defendant in the course of his business, or in a transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest; (2) the defendant supplies “false information” for the guidance of others in their business; (3) the defendant did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information; and (4) the plaintiff suffers pecuniary loss by justifiably relying on the representation. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d at 442.

The Court concludes that Hutchison’s attempt to invoke Sloane fails because he has not pled, let alone proven, that Franklin supplied false information for guidance in Hutchison’s business.

Colbert v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 850 Fed. App’x 870, 876 (5th Cir. 2021)

(“Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to meet the second prong of a negligent misrepresentation claim [under Sloane], that Wells Fargo supplied false information for guidance in their business. Texas courts require false information to be for guidance in another’s business.”).

The Court further concludes that Hutchison’s claim under Sloane is barred by the economic loss doctrine, as the loan documents are the source of any duty under Sloane owed by Franklin. Id. at 876–77

(“The duty to correct misleading statements and duty to use reasonable care in communicating information are directly related to the [mortgage] contract.

These duties do not arise from a separate common-law duty and would not give rise to liability independent of the fact that a contract exists between the parties.”)

(brackets and quotation marks omitted).

—No evidence

Irrespective of the legal basis for his negligence claim, Hutchison does not cite to any evidence in the record to create a triable fact issue on any element of that claim, and his response merely regurgitates part of his pleading and has no evidence attached to it. Franklin met its summary judgment burden by pointing out the absence of evidence supporting Hutchison’s case.

(Dkt. 20 at p. 15). Duffy, 44 F.3d at 312.

As a result, Hutchison was obligated to go beyond the pleadings and show by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, or other admissible evidence that specific facts exist over which there is a genuine issue for trial.

Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. Hutchison has utterly failed to do so.

C.                Injunctive relief

Hutchison requests that the Court permanently enjoin Franklin from foreclosing on the home.

(Dkt. 1-1 at p. 15).

The Court must dismiss this claim because Hutchison’s causes of action for wrongful foreclosure and negligence are not viable and Hutchison has not presented any other basis on which the Court could grant injunctive relief.

Under Texas law, “[a]n injunction is an equitable remedy, not a cause of action.”

Brittingham v. Ayala, 995 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied).

“If a claim or cause of action is not alleged, the trial court lacks authority to issue an injunction.” Id.

Hutchison’s causes of action for wrongful foreclosure and negligence are not viable, and Hutchison has not presented any other basis on which the Court could grant injunctive relief.

Franklin is entitled to summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Franklin is entitled to summary judgment in this action. Accordingly, Franklin’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 20) is GRANTED. Any other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

A separate final judgment will issue.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on March 31, 2022.

GEORGE C. HANKS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:20-cv-02198

Hutchison v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation
Assigned to: Judge George C Hanks, Jr

Case in other court:  164th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas, 20-32103

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 06/23/2020
Date Terminated: 03/31/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
06/23/2020 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from District Court 164th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas, case number 2020-32103 (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0541-24834843) filed by Franklin Credit Management Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 06/23/2020)
06/23/2020 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed.(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 06/23/2020)
06/24/2020 3 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 10/14/2020 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 600 in Houston before Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(ShadiaNashadi, 4) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
06/29/2020 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Philip W. Danaher on behalf of Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed. (Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 06/29/2020)
07/09/2020 5 REQUEST for pre-motion conference, filed.(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
07/09/2020 6 NOTICE of Setting re: 5 REQUEST for pre-motion conference. Parties notified.Pretrial Conference set for 7/16/2020 at 10:45 AM by video before Judge George C Hanks Jr, filed. (ltrevino, 3) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
07/16/2020 7 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George C Hanks, Jr. PRE-MOTION CONFERENCE re: 5 REQUEST for pre-motion conference held on 7/16/2020. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due by 7/24/2020. Plaintiff will respond in 21 days. Defendant’s Reply Brief is due 7 days after. If the defendant does not file a motion to dismiss, a letter will be filed informing the Court. Appearances: Philip W Danaher, Ray L Shackelford.(Court Reporter: J Sanchez)(Digital # 10:57-11:08), filed.(gclair, 4) (Entered: 07/17/2020)
07/24/2020 8 NOTICE of Non-Intent to File MTD, by Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed. (Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 07/24/2020)
08/07/2020 9 ORDER. Initial Scheduling Conference set for 10/14/2020 at 09:30 AM by video before Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison. Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan due by 10/7/2020. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison) Parties notified.(ltrevino, 3) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
09/21/2020 10 NOTICE of Resetting re: 9 Order. Parties notified. Initial Conference reset for 10/15/2020 at 09:30 AM in by video before Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison, filed. (JessicaVillarrealadi, 3) (Entered: 09/21/2020)
10/06/2020 11 JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed.(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 10/06/2020)
10/15/2020 12 DOCKET CONTROL ORDER. ETT: 5-7 days. Amended Pleadings due by 10/30/2020. Joinder of Parties due by 10/30/2020 Pltf Expert Witness List due by 4/30/2021. Pltf Expert Report due by 4/30/2021. Deft Expert Witness List due by 5/28/2021. Deft Expert Report due by 5/28/2021. Discovery due by 6/18/2021. Dispositive Motion Filing due by 6/25/2021. Non-Dispositive Motion Filing due by 8/6/2021. Joint Pretrial Order and Motions in Limine due by 9/24/2021. Docket Call set for 10/1/2021 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 600 in Houston before Judge George C Hanks Jr. Case is subject to being called to trial on short notice during Nov/Dec 2021. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison) Parties notified.(agould, 3) (Entered: 10/15/2020)
04/01/2021 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Cunningham on behalf of Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed. (Cunningham, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/01/2021)
04/01/2021 14 SUPPLEMENT to 1 Notice of Removal, by Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 04/01/2021)
05/28/2021 15 DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS LIST by Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 05/28/2021)
06/28/2021 16 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment Out of Time, by Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/19/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 06/28/2021)
07/05/2021 17 Letter Requesting Conference for MSJ, by Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed.(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 07/05/2021)
07/07/2021 18 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jonathan Cunningham, counsel for Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed. (Cunningham, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/07/2021)
07/09/2021 19 ORDER granting 16 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment Out of Time, by Franklin Credit Management Corporation. Due by 07/16/2021. A pre-motion conference is not necessary.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(jegonzalez, 4) (Entered: 07/09/2021)
07/15/2021 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/5/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 07/15/2021)
09/14/2021 21 NOTICE of No Response to Defendant’s MSJ, by Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed. (Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 09/14/2021)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
12/15/2023 00:13:28

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:20-cv-02198

Hutchison v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation
Assigned to: Judge George C Hanks, Jr

Case in other court:  164th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas, 20-32103

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 06/23/2020
Date Terminated: 03/31/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/24/2021 22 Proposed Pretrial Order by Franklin Credit Management Corporation(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 09/24/2021)
09/24/2021 23 Witness List by Franklin Credit Management Corporation(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 09/24/2021)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
12/15/2023 00:16:11

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:20-cv-02198

Hutchison v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation
Assigned to: Judge George C Hanks, Jr

Case in other court:  164th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas, 20-32103

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 06/23/2020
Date Terminated: 03/31/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Anthony L Hutchison represented by Ray L Shackelford
State Bar Information
1406 Southmore Blvd
Houston, TX 77004
713-520-8484
Fax: 713-520-8192
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Franklin Credit Management Corporation represented by Jonathan Jay Cunningham
Fidelity National Law Group
Legacy Town Center II
6900 Dallas Parkway
Suite 610
Plano, TX 75024
972-812-6545
Fax: 972-812-9408
Email: jonathan.cunningham@fnf.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDPhilip W Danaher
Danaher Law Firm
833 SW Lemans Lane
Suite 116
Lees Summit, MO 64082
817-791-4892
Email: philip@danaherlawfirm.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMark Douglas Cronenwett
Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C.
14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Ste. 900
Dallas, TX 75254
214-635-2650
Fax: 214-635-2686
Email: mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/24/2021 24 Proposed Findings of Fact by Franklin Credit Management Corporation(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 09/24/2021)
09/24/2021 25 Proposed Conclusions of Law by Franklin Credit Management Corporation(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 09/24/2021)
09/24/2021 26 Exhibit List by Franklin Credit Management Corporation(Danaher, Philip) (Entered: 09/24/2021)
09/27/2021 27 NOTICE of Resetting. Parties notified. Docket Call RESET for 11/19/2021 at 10:00 AM by video before Judge George C Hanks Jr, filed. (jegonzalez, 4) (Entered: 09/27/2021)
11/17/2021 28 NOTICE of Resetting. Parties notified. Docket Call RESET for 12/3/2021 at 10:45 AM by video before Judge George C Hanks Jr, filed. (jegonzalez, 4) (Entered: 11/17/2021)
11/29/2021 29 RESPONSE to 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Anthony L Hutchison. (Metze, Marc) (Entered: 11/29/2021)
12/01/2021 30 MOTION to Strike 29 Response to Motion (untimely), by Franklin Credit Management Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/22/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 12/01/2021)
12/03/2021 31 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George C Hanks, Jr. DOCKET CALL held on 12/3/2021. The Court held docket call as stated on the record. Defendants motion to strike Plaintiffs response to Defendants motion for summary judgment as untimely Dkt. 30 is DENIED. Defendant may file a reply brief on or before December 17, 2021. After it rules on Defendants motion for summary judgment, the Court will, if necessary, give the parties another docket call and trial setting. Appearances: Ray Shackelford. Mark Cronenwett. Jonathan Cunningham. (ERO: yes), filed. (bthomas, 4) (bthomas, 4). (Entered: 12/07/2021)
12/17/2021 32 REPLY in Support of 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Franklin Credit Management Corporation. (Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 12/17/2021)
03/31/2022 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Any other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. This case is DISMISSED WITHPREJUDICE. A separate final judgment will issue. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified. (bthomas, 4) (Entered: 03/31/2022)
04/08/2022 34 FINAL JUDGMENT. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(bthomas, 4) (Entered: 04/08/2022)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
09/29/2023 06:05:30

Shacked Up: Lewbonne Development Real Estate Investors Fighting Foreclosure in Houston

A residential home at 4730 Ivanhoe St in Houston and adjacent is a vacant lot at 4734 Ivanhoe St in Houston, Texas results in two lawsuits.

Shack’s Insomnia: Filing Baseless Lawsuits to Stop Foreclosure When It’s Ricardo “Kickbacks” Aguirre

Trustee Davila, Lopez, and Leticia Ablaza demanded that HISD cancel its contract with MetroClean, and award it to Accel Building Maintenance.

Piercing the Corporate Veil between Shackelford and Associates, LLC and Southwest Wholesale, LLC

LIT questions the client relationship between attorney Ray L. Shackelford and indicted Anthony Hutchison. It’s far closer than it may seem.

The Shack Train is Pullin’ Into the 14th Court of Appeals Puffin’ Smoke for Indicted Tony Hutchison
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top