The Northern Lights….
Our Investigative Legal Blog Unveils Judicial & Legal Corruption: Exposing the Ongoing Home Theft Crisis Since 2008
Witness the real facts based on real litigation in Texas courts, as we shine a spotlight on the shocking truth behind the ongoing home theft crisis in Texas, plaguing citizens since the Great Recession of 2008. No holds barred, just unfiltered facts.
Stay informed, stay empowered: Follow our X (Twitter) account for real-time bombshells.
AUG 16, 2024
Top of the morn’ @LockeLord
Y’all know we’ve intervened in NDTX court. Well, there’s a property case goin’ on right now which involves all the right people, aka wolves n’ bandits. We’ve been catchin’ up with Kenny’s reply to time-barred @DeutscheBank https://t.co/Ce7cIMPUS7 pic.twitter.com/bMx9pQhQT9— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 15, 2024
FFGGP Inc v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
(3:24-cv-00470)
District Court, N.D. Texas
MAR 1, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 15, 2024
FEB 5, APR 24,
AUG 15, SEP 1, 11 2024
Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:24-cv-00470-B
| FFGGP Inc v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Assigned to: Judge Jane J Boyle
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 02/28/2024 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: All Other Real Property Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 08/21/2024 | 31 |
Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company re 26 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) / Deutsche Bank Trustee’s Reply Brief in Support of its Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 08/21/2024) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/11/2024 16:56:06 |
To assist the Court in its review of Deutsche Bank Trustee’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and FFGGP’s Response, Deutsche Bank Trustee files this Reply Brief.
I. SUMMARY
Deutsche Bank Trustee moved for summary judgment on the following grounds:
· Deutsche Bank Trustee’s summary-judgment evidence establishes the strength of its own superior title to succeed on its trespass-to-try-title counterclaim.
· FFGGP’s quiet-title claim premised on three acceleration dates—2011, 2015, and 2019—fails and should be dismissed because:
1. Res judicata bars the limitations claim premised on the 2011 acceleration because a court has already determined that any purported acceleration by Deutsche Bank Trustee in 2011 was deemed abandoned and rejected FFGGP’s limitations claim.
2. Deutsche Bank Trustee timely and unequivocally abandoned the 2015 acceleration by sending correspondence requesting less than the accelerated balance due on the 2007 Loan before the limitations period expired.
3. Deutsche Bank Trustee’s evidence demonstrates that Deutsche Bank Trustee never re-accelerated the debt in 2019, or at any point since, to trigger the limitations period.
4. FFGGP cannot demonstrate a valid tender—a necessary requirement to obtain quiet-title relief.
FFGGP has not raised a material fact question as to any of these grounds for summary judgment:
· Deutsche Bank Trustee moved for summary judgment on res judicata on the 2011 acceleration. FFGGP does not respond to that argument. FFGGP only argues that res judicata does not apply to its arguments about a subsequent acceleration.
Summary judgment should be granted in favor of Deutsche Bank Trustee as to the 2011 acceleration because res judicata bars those claims.
· FFGGP has not addressed Deutsche Bank Trustee’s evidence showing that Deutsche Bank Trustee abandoned the 2015 acceleration of the 2007 Loan by sending two letters to the Borrowers—both of which requested less than the total accelerated balance due.1
· With respect to the 2019 acceleration, FFGGP argues that Deutsche Bank Trustee accelerated the 2007 Loan in 2015 and never abandoned such acceleration. That is wrong. See previous bullet point. In the alternative, FFGGP speculates that Deutsche Bank Trustee must have re-accelerated the debt based on the 2019 notice of sale.
This argument is incorrect.
Acceleration requires two affirmative acts:
(1) a clear and unequivocal pre-acceleration notice of intent to accelerate, and (2) notice of acceleration.
There is no evidence that Deutsche Bank Trustee re-accelerated the 2007 Loan after it abandoned the 2015 acceleration.
· Finally, FFGGP argues it does not need to establish that it tendered the required sums owed on the 2007 Loan to Deutsche Bank Trustee because the loan obligation is allegedly “unenforceable.”
This argument is incorrect because the 2007 Loan is enforceable and a valid tender offer is required in order to obtain a judgment quieting title to the Property.
The Court should grant Deutsche Bank Trustee’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
1 Doc. No. 27 at 17–20.
II. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. FFGGP Does Not Respond to Deutsche Bank Trustee’s Arguments in Support of its Counterclaim for Trespass To Try Title
Deutsche Bank Trustee moved for summary judgment on its counterclaim for trespass to try title against FFGGP, seeking to recover title and possession of the Property.2
Deutsche Bank Trustee presented evidence establishing:
(1) its superior title to the Property,
(2) an uncured default on the 2007 Loan,
(3) Deutsche Bank Trustee’s possessory right to foreclose on the Property,
and
(4) FFGGP’s continuous interference with Deutsche Bank Trustee’s possessory rights.3
But FFGGP fails to provide either evidence or arguments to preclude summary judgment on Deutsche Bank Trustee’s trespass-to-try-title claim.
B. FFGGP Does Not Respond to or Present Controverting Evidence to Deutsche Bank Trustee’s Res Judicata Arguments that a Prior Court Already Adjudicated the Limitations Claim Based On the Alleged 2011 Acceleration
FFGGP fails to provide either evidence or arguments responding to Deutsche Bank Trustee’s res judicata arguments relating to the purported 2011 acceleration.4
FFGGP incorrectly states that Deutsche Bank Trustee’s res judicata arguments relate to the 2019 acceleration.5
But they do not.
Deutsche Bank Trustee’s res judicata arguments squarely addressed the 2011 acceleration.6
A court has already decided that Deutsche Bank Trustee abandoned the 2011 acceleration.”7
Because FFGGP has not responded to this summary-judgment ground, the Court may consider this fact undisputed and grant summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank
2 Doc. No. 17 at (¶¶ 31–35, Prayer); Doc. No. 27 at 21–23.
3 Doc. No. 17 at (¶¶ 31–35, Prayer); Doc. No. 27 at 21–23.
4 See generally Doc. No. 30.
5 Doc. No. 30 at 2.
6 Doc. No. 27 at 18–21.
7 Doc. No. 27 at Ex. B-3 (app’x_259).
Trustee.8 See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(2), (3);
See Garcia v. State Farm Lloyds, 629 F. Supp. 3d 504, 510 (N.D. Tex. 2022); see also Davis v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al., No. 4:14-CV-254-O, 2015 WL 11120587, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2015)
(determining that plaintiff’s failure to respond to bank’s summary judgment arguments and evidence “allows the Court to consider [the bank’s] facts undisputed for the purposes of the motion”).
C. FFGGP Does Not Respond to Deutsche Bank Trustee’s Abandonment-of- Acceleration Arguments Regarding the 2015 Acceleration
Deutsche Bank Trustee moved for summary judgment on FFGGP’s limitations claim based on the 2015 acceleration because the summary-judgment evidence unequivocally establishes that any acceleration in 2015 was subsequently abandoned about five months after the initial January 14, 2015 acceleration date.9
According to the Response, FFGGP does not dispute that Deutsche Bank Trustee sent correspondence to the Borrowers requesting less than the full accelerated balance due, which unequivocally abandoned the 2015 acceleration.10
Summary judgment should be granted in favor of Deutsche Bank Trustee because Deutsche Bank Trustee abandoned the 2015 acceleration by issuing correspondence requesting less than the full accelerated balance due from the Borrowers before the limitations period expired in January 2019.11
See, e.g., Jatera Corp. v. US Bank Nat’l Ass’n as Tr. for Registered Holders of Citigroup Mortg. Loan Tr., 917 F.3d 831, 835 (5th Cir. 2019)
(acknowledging that default notice which requested less than the full debt constitutes an abandonment of a prior acceleration);
Martin v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 814 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 2016)
(“[T]he request for payment of less than the full obligation—after initially
8 FFGGP’s disregard of Deutsche Bank Trustee’s actual arguments in favor of responding to arguments not made suggests that this entire lawsuit—like the three prior lawsuits—is frivolous and should be dismissed with prejudice.
9 Doc. No. 27 at 23–28.
10 See generally Doc. No. 30.
11 Doc. No. 27 at 26.
accelerating the entire obligation—was an unequivocal expression of the bank’s intent to abandon or waive its initial acceleration”);
Leonard v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., 616 F. App’x 677, 680 (5th Cir. 2015)
(holding that a lender waives or abandons its earlier acceleration when it “put[s] the [borrower] on notice of its abandonment of acceleration by requesting payment on less than the full amount of the loan”).
D. FFGGP Does Not Respond to Deutsche Bank Trustee’s Arguments Relating to the Alleged 2019 Acceleration or Present Any Evidence Demonstrating Acceleration in 2019
FFGGP contends that Deutsche Bank Trustee accelerated the 2007 Loan, as evidenced by the 2019 notice of sale.12
Deutsche Bank Trustee never re-accelerated the 2007 Loan after it abandoned the 2015 acceleration because acceleration requires two acts:
(1) notice of intent to accelerate,
and
(2) notice of acceleration.
See Wilmington Tr., Nat’l Ass’n v. Rob, 891 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 2018); Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562, 566 (Tex. 2001).
The summary-judgment record is devoid of either of these two notices.
The Court should not assume that the 2019 notice of sale was based on a proper re-acceleration of the 2007 Loan without evidence of such.
E. FFGGP Does Not Adequately Respond to Deutsche Bank Trustee’s Arguments Regarding FFGGP’s Failure to Furnish Proof of A Valid Tender Offer
In the Response, FFGGP argues that it need not tender the amounts due and owing on the 2007 Loan to obtain quiet-title relief if the loan obligation is “unenforceable.”13
First, FFGGP has not shown that the loan obligation is unenforceable.
Second, Texas law, as acknowledged by this Court, clearly requires FFGGP to furnish proof of a valid “tender [offer] of whatever amount is owed on the note” to obtain a judgment quieting title to the Property in its name.
12 Doc. No. 30 at 3–4.
13 Doc. No. 30 at 4.
See Cook-Bell v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 585, 591 (N.D. Tex. 2012) (citation omitted). Summary judgment should be granted in favor of Deutsche Bank Trustee because Deutsche Bank Trustee introduced into the record proof of the absence of any tender offer by FFGGP, and FFGGP has not presented any controverting evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Deutsche Bank Trustee respectfully requests that the Court grant its Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and dismiss FFGGP’s claims with prejudice as to the re-filing of the same.
Deutsche Bank Trustee also requests all such further relief to which it may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Helen O. Turner
Robert T. Mowrey – Attorney-in-Charge
Texas Bar No. 14607500
rmowrey@lockelord.com
Cynthia K. Timms
Texas Bar No. 11161450
ctimms@lockelord.com
Matthew K. Hansen
Texas Bar No. 24065368
mkhansen@lockelord.com
LOCKE LORD LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
Dallas, Texas 75201-2750
Telephone: (214) 740-8000
Facsimile: (214) 740-8800
Helen O. Turner
Texas Bar No. 24094229
helen.turner@lockelord.com
LOCKE LORD LLP
600 Travis Street, Suite 2800
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 226-1280
Facsimile: (713) 229-2501
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/COUNTER- PLAINTIFF/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:24-cv-00470-B
| FFGGP Inc v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Assigned to: Judge Jane J Boyle
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 02/28/2024 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: All Other Real Property Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 08/07/2024 | 30 |
RESPONSE filed by FFGGP Inc, FFGGP Inc re: 26 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) (Harter, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/07/2024) |
| 08/21/2024 | 31 | Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company re 26 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) / Deutsche Bank Trustee’s Reply Brief in Support of its Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 08/21/2024) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/01/2024 15:51:08 |
Plaintiff suggests that the key to this case is the erroneous assertion by DEUTSCHE BANK that:
“FFGGP has not furnished any evidence proving that Deutsche Bank Trustee accelerated the debt in 2019”.1
This statement ignores Exhibit 1-I to Plaintiff’s Motion:
a “Notice of Posting and Sale” sent by Deutsch’s foreclosure counsel on January 4, 2019, and the Notice of Foreclosure Sale posting the property for sale on February 5, 2019.
Attached to that correspondence to the borrower is the Default Order rendered under Rule 736, Tex.R.Civ.Pro., dated December 16, 2015.
Contrary to the bank’s wrong statement that the loan was not accelerated in 2019, the
1 Page 2, DKT 25
evidence is uncontradicted that it was accelerated.
Further, Defendant provides no evidence that the acceleration was abandoned.
In fact, in Plaintiff’s Request for Production, such category of documents was requested, and none were provided.
Deutsche insists that the claim brought here, that the 2019 acceleration of its note prevents it from now enforcing the deed of trust, is barred by res judicata because of the judgment in its favor rendered in the second case brought.
This argument fails.
That case was brought before 2019 and decided before 2019, and therefore it could not have addressed or precluded claims based upon limitations accruing in 2019 and terminating the powers of sale in 2023.
Deutsche makes another incorrect assertion of fact.
Deutsche insists that the loan was not accelerated again after an abandonment of acceleration issued in 2015.
The property was posted for sale on January 25, 2016, for the March 1, 2016 sale.2
Deutsche correctly notes that these parties were litigating the issue of limitations in the County Court at Law #2, Kaufman County, Texas, and that the case was dismissed for want of prosecution.3
At issue in that case was a 2015 acceleration.
There was no judgment on the merits.
Before the case was dismissed both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment.
The court did not address the motions before dismissing the case.
In that case Plaintiff did not put in issue the 2019 acceleration because the case was filed before that could have been an issue.
RES JUDICATA CANNOT APPLY
The elements of res judicata:
“Four elements must be met for a claim to be barred by res judicata:
“(1) the parties must be identical in the two actions;
(2) the prior judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(3) there must be a final judgment on the merits;
and
(4) the same claim or cause of action must be involved in both cases.”
In re Ark–La– Tex Timber Co., 482 F.3d 319, 330 (5th Cir.2007).”
Oreck Direct, LLC v. Dyson, Inc., 560 F.3d
2 See Exhibit 1-A. In the unlikely event that Deutsche was unable to locate this in their archives, these documents were produced to it by Plaintiff in the earlier litigation.
3 Both parties moved the court to reinstate the case. The court denied the motion.
398, 401 (5th Cir. 2009).
The first three elements are present.
The fourth element is not present because the same issue is not being litigated.
The second lawsuit upon which Deutsche depends was filed, litigated and concluded before the 2019 acceleration.
Issues regarding the compliance of the loan with the Texas Constitution or other similar issues are certainly off the table at this point.
However, what we have here is a 2019 acceleration that was not the subject of any of the previous litigation.4
“Res judicata does not operate as a bar to litigation when the second claim could not be raised in the previous litigation.”
Barnes v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 395 S.W.3d 165, 173 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied)
In Barnes, the Court held that the claim of res judicata must fail because the issues in that case were not the same as the issues in the previous suit.
“Because we conclude that the issues decided by the Department of Workers’ Compensation are not identical to those presented in this action for gross negligence, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Id at 169.
(See too:
“Res judicata does not operate as a bar to litigation when the second claim could not have been raised in the previous litigation.”
Whallon v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 146, 155–56 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied)
In conclusion, the summary judgment evidence is uncontradicted that the underlying mortgage note was accelerated in 2019.
There is no evidence that the acceleration was abandoned.
Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.
DEUTSCHE urges5 that FFGGP provided no evidence of a 2019 acceleration.
The provenance of this assertion is unclear, as the January 4, 2019 Notice of Posting and the Notice of Sale were issued by it (or at its behest) and has been proffered by Plaintiff in its motion.6
FFGGP cannot explain, and DEUTSCHE does not explain, why it failed to produce evidence of the
4 As discussed in the Motion, the third case was based upon the 2015 acceleration. During that litigation Deutsche never produced any evidence of abandonment. Rather, it relied upon the theory of subrogation.
5 Page 20 of its Memorandum
6 The documents are reproduced here, again, as Exhibit 1-B
abandonment of the 2015 acceleration upon which it now so heavily relies while the parties were litigating the earlier Kaufman County case.7
But this is moot now, inasmuch as it re-posted the property in January 2019.
TENDER IS A NON-ISSUE
Finally, DEUTSCHE urges that because there is no evidence that FFGGP tendered the amount due under the note it is now precluded from seeking relief.
It cites a case that tender is required on sums owed on the note.8
However, in this case FFGGP insists that the deed of trust is now unenforceable.
It would be a fool’s errand to pay off a note that cannot be enforced, and it would be a most unusual precept in the law to require payment of an unenforceable obligation as a condition precedent to a determination that the obligation is unenforceable.
CONCLUSION
Res judicata does not apply and cannot apply because the facts made the basis of Plaintiff’s suit did not exist at the time of the earlier litigation.
The summary judgment evidence conclusively shows the acceleration and there is no evidence of abandonment. The issue of tender is a non-issue as tender cannot be required to litigate the enforceability of a note.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant its Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
/s/ Kenneth S. Harter
Kenneth S. Harter
State Bar ID 09155300
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH S. HARTER
6160 Warren Pkwy Suite 100
Frisco, Tx. 75034
(972) 752-1928
Fax (214) 206-1491
ken@kenharter.com
7 As explained in the Motion for Summary Judgment, this document was not produced until DEUTSCHE filed its Motion for New Trial in the state court.
8 Cook-Bell vs. Morg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 868 F.Supp 2nd 585, 591 (N.D. 2012)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on counsel of record on August 7, 2024, via the ecf system.
/s/ Kenneth S. Harter
Kenneth S. Harter
EXIBHIT 1
UNSWORN DECLARATION MADE PURSUANT TO C.P.R.C. §132.001
STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF COLLIN
My name is KENNETH S. HARTER. I am above the age of 18. I am competent to make this Declaration. All facts stated herein are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.
Attached hereto and marked Exhibit 1-A is a true and correct copy of the foreclosure posting for the property the subject of this suit for March 1, 2016.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1-B is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Acceleration and Sale for 2019.
I had represented FFGGP in the third lawsuit in Kaufman County Court at Law.
During that case Defendant never produced any document indicating an abandonment of the 2015 acceleration.
During the litigation it relied upon the argument that it was entitled to enforce the original, purchase money deed of trust, based upon principles of subrogation.
The letter purporting to abandon the 2015 acceleration was not produced by the bank until it filed its Motion for New Trial in this case, before it was removed to this Court.
/s/ Kenneth S. Harter
Kenneth S. Harter
JURAT
My name is KENNETH S. HARTER. My date of birth is 02/19/1954.
My business address is 6160 Warren Pkwy, Suite 100, Frisco, Tx., 75034.
The forgoing is made under penalty of perjury, and is true and correct.
Signed on August 7, 2024.
/s/ Kenneth S. Harter
Kenneth S. Harter
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:24-cv-00470-B
| FFGGP Inc v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Assigned to: Judge Jane J Boyle
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 02/28/2024 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: All Other Real Property Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 04/25/2024 | 12 | ANSWER to 9 Amended Complaint,, filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information – Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 04/25/2024) |
| 06/07/2024 | 13 | Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Original Counterclaim, and Third-Party Complaint filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Proposed Order Granting Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Original Counterclaim, and Third-Party Complaint) (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 06/07/2024) |
| 06/10/2024 | 14 | ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 13 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, Original Counterclaim, and Third-Party Complaint. (Unless the documents have already been filed, clerk to enter Documents 13-1 and 13-2 as of the date of this order.) (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 6/10/2024) (chmb) (Entered: 06/10/2024) |
| 06/10/2024 | 15 | ELECTRONIC ORDER: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2) “provides that where–as here–‘jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a),’ each party to the case ‘must, unless the court orders otherwise, file a disclosure statement’ ‘with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court.’ Villamil v. Fayrustin, No. EP-23-CV-00428-DCG, 2024 WL 1664791, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2024) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2)). The disclosure statement “must name–and identify the citizenship of–every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff FFGGP, Inc. (“FFGGP”) has yet to file its Rule 7.1 disclosure statement despite having made an appearance. Moreover, the Court notes that, based on its review of the record, FFGGP’s citizenship has not been affirmatively established. A corporation, such as FFGGP, is a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business. See Villamil, 2024 WL 1664791, at *5. While the record indicates that FFGGP was incorporated in New York, the Court has been unable to ascertain FFGGP’s principal place of business. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS FFGGP to file a disclosure statement by June 28, 2024, that complies with the requirements of Rule 7.1 and specifics where its principal place of business was at the commencement of this lawsuit (i.e., October 31, 2023) and at the time of removal (i.e., February 28, 2024). (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 6/10/2024) (chmb) (Entered: 06/10/2024) |
| 06/10/2024 | 16 | AMENDED ANSWER to 9 Amended Complaint filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. (cfk) (Entered: 06/10/2024) |
| 06/10/2024 | 17 | ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM against FFGGP Inc filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. (cfk) (Entered: 06/10/2024) |
| 06/10/2024 | 18 | THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Estate of Judy Colena Carter, Estate of Dorothy Elizabeth Smith filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. (See Document 17 for image). Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information – Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (cfk) (Entered: 06/10/2024) |
| 06/11/2024 | 19 | Request for Clerk to issue Summons in a Civil Action filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 06/11/2024) |
| 06/11/2024 | 20 | Summons Issued as to Estate of Dorothy Elizabeth Smith, Estate of Judy Colena Carter. (agc) (Entered: 06/11/2024) |
| 06/18/2024 | 21 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by FFGGP Inc. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Harter, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/18/2024) |
| 07/05/2024 | 22 | ANSWER to Complaint filed by FFGGP Inc. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information – Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. Attorney Kenneth Stuart Harter added to party FFGGP Inc(pty:cd) (Harter, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/05/2024) |
| 07/08/2024 | 23 | MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FFGGP Inc, FFGGP Inc with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) APPENDIX TO MSJ) (Harter, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/08/2024) |
| 07/29/2024 | 24 | RESPONSE filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company re: 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 07/29/2024) |
| 07/29/2024 | 25 | Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company re 24 Response/Objection (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 07/29/2024) |
| 07/29/2024 | 26 | Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 07/29/2024) |
| 07/29/2024 | 27 | Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company re 26 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 07/29/2024) |
| 07/29/2024 | 28 | Appendix in Support filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company re 24 Response/Objection (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B) (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 07/29/2024) |
| 07/29/2024 | 29 | Appendix in Support filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company re 26 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B) (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 07/29/2024) |
| 08/07/2024 | 30 | RESPONSE filed by FFGGP Inc, FFGGP Inc re: 26 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) (Harter, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/07/2024) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 08/15/2024 07:53:07 |
CAUGHT, AGAIN:
BDF HOPKINS FRAUD ON THE COURT N’ PARTIES
“Although the assignment was executed on April 28, 2020 (after default judgment), it recites an effective date of November 26, 2019 (before default judgment).”
Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, COA4 https://t.co/nRG1xjV2Dd pic.twitter.com/Ylw7dXRB8G— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 15, 2024
WHATCHA GONNA MEDIATE, LAWYER KICKBACKS OR…?
04/17/2024
Designation of Mediator by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 04/17/2024)
04/22/2024
MEDIATION ORDER.
The court appoints (DEUTSCHE BANK’S CHOICE OF MEDIATOR) King Fifer as mediator. Alternative Dispute Resolution Summary form provided electronically or by US Mail as appropriate.
Deadline for mediation is on or before 12/13/2024.
(Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 4/22/2024) (cfk) (Entered: 04/22/2024)
Hon. King Fifer
Dallas, Texas
Former Judge King Fifer presided over Dallas County Court at Law No. 2 from January 2007 until January 2018.
He oversaw more than 300 jury trials, some resulting in multi-million dollar verdicts, and more than a thousand bench trials.
He was named Trial Judge of the Year by the Dallas chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates in 2009 and consistently received high ratings from attorneys appearing in his court.
As judge, King supervised the resolution of disputes arising in the real estate, manufacturing, oil and gas, healthcare, computer technology, construction, retail sales, and insurance industries.
He presided over many trials involving complex business litigation matters, including breach of contract, professional malpractice, fraud, partnership dissolution, violations of fiduciary duties, breach of non-compete covenants, theft of trade secrets, and employment-related issues.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:24-cv-00470-B
| FFGGP Inc v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Assigned to: Judge Jane J Boyle
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 02/28/2024 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: All Other Real Property Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 03/18/2024 | 6 | SCHEDULING ORDER: This case is set for trial beginning Monday 5/12/2025 before Judge Jane J Boyle. Joinder of Parties due by 6/7/2024. Amended Pleadings due by 6/7/2024. Motions due by 1/24/2025. Discovery due by 12/13/2024. Deadline for mediation is on or before 12/13/2024. Pretrial Order due by 4/28/2024. Pretrial Materials due by 4/28/2024. Pretrial Conference set for 5/9/2025 10:00 AM before Judge Jane J Boyle. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 3/18/2024) (ndt) (Entered: 03/18/2024) |
| 04/10/2024 | 7 | Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by FFGGP Inc (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amendment proposed amended complaint, # 2 Proposed Order order granting motion) (Harter, Kenneth) Modified event text on 4/12/2024 (kcr). (Entered: 04/10/2024) |
| 04/11/2024 | 8 | ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 7 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. (Unless the document has already been filed, clerk to enter Document 7-1 as of the date of this order.) (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 4/11/2024) (chmb) (Entered: 04/11/2024) |
| 04/11/2024 | 9 | AMENDED COMPLAINT against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed by FFGGP Inc. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information – Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (kcr) (Entered: 04/12/2024) |
| 04/17/2024 | 10 | Designation of Mediator by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 04/17/2024) |
| 04/22/2024 | 11 | MEDIATION ORDER. The court appoints King Fifer as mediator. Alternative Dispute Resolution Summary form provided electronically or by US Mail as appropriate. Deadline for mediation is on or before 12/13/2024. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 4/22/2024) (cfk) (Entered: 04/22/2024) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 04/23/2024 17:56:53 |
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:24-cv-00470-B
| FFGGP Inc v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Assigned to: Judge Jane J Boyle
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 02/28/2024 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: All Other Real Property Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| FFGGP Inc as Trustee |
represented by | Kenneth Stuart Harter Law Offices of Kenneth S Harter 6160 Warren Drive Suite 100 Frisco, TX 75034 972-752-1928 Fax: 214-206-1491 Email: ken@kenharter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2008-1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2008-1 |
represented by | Helen Onome Turner Locke Lord LLP 600 Travis Street Suite 2800 Houston, TX 77002 713-226-1280 Fax: 713-229-2501 Email: helen.turner@lockelord.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCynthia K Timms Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Ave Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201 214-740-8635 Fax: 214-740-8800 Email: ctimms@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew K Hansen Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201 214-740-8496 Fax: 214-756-8496 Email: mkhansen@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert T Mowrey Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 214-740-8000 Fax: 214-740-8800 Email: rmowrey@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 02/28/2024 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2008-1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2008-1. (Filing fee $405; receipt number ATXNDC-14424730) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements and Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information – Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E, # 6 Exhibit(s) F, # 7 Exhibit(s) G, # 8 Exhibit(s) H, # 9 Exhibit(s) I, # 10 Exhibit(s) J, # 11 Exhibit(s) K, # 12 Exhibit(s) L, # 13 Exhibit(s) M, # 14 Exhibit(s) N, # 15 Exhibit(s) O, # 16 Exhibit(s) P, # 17 Exhibit(s) Q, # 18 Exhibit(s) R, # 19 Exhibit(s) S, # 20 Exhibit(s) T, # 21 Exhibit(s) U) (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 02/28/2024) |
| 02/28/2024 | 2 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2008-1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2008-1. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 02/28/2024) |
| 02/28/2024 | 3 | New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Toliver). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (kcr) (Entered: 02/29/2024) |
| 03/01/2024 | 4 | STATUS REPORT ORDER: Joint Status Report due by 3/22/2024. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 3/1/2024) (cfk) (Entered: 03/01/2024) |
| 03/14/2024 | 5 | Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. (Turner, Helen) (Entered: 03/14/2024) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 03/15/2024 09:51:33 |
MTGLQ Inv’rs Rehearing Denied.
There’s No Riddle, Just a Premeditated Guess Which Contradicts
This court makes a confident Erie guess that the Texas Supreme Court would have concluded that explicit substitution was not required.
Operation Cleanup: The Legal Bandits n’ Outlaws Circle the Wagons Around Pro Se Charles Mosely
LawsInTexas.com is the only legal investigative blog willing to detail the actual schemes in place in Texas Courts to steal citizens homes.
Pro Se Vexatious Litigant Lou Tyler’s 8th Lawsuit in N.D. Texas Federal Court on Appeal to the Fifth Circuit
Is the law being applied equally in Texas courts? The Court should sua sponte dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice as barred by res judicata.
Criminal Acts: BDF and Hopkins Law Conspire with Lenders to Commit Fraud on the Court and Parties
The Greatest Theft of Citizens Homes has become an Egregious Vendetta by Lawyers and the Judiciary against one homeowner, Joanna Burke.
Lawyer or Lowlife? James Minerve and the Indictment Drama with Wayne Franks
Harris County’s Legal Circus: Why Bandit Lawyer James Minerve and Indicted Wayne Franks Are Receiving VIP Treatment in the Courtroom.
Foreclosure Mill Lawyers Gamesmanship Evident in Deutsche Bank Lawsuits Before Judge Al Bennett
We’re ON IT with ONITY.LOAN and LawsinTexas.com as we investigate the Greatest Theft Scheme invoked to steal homeowners properties in Texas.
Fifth Cir. Judge Don Willett Says Prior Panel’s Wrongful Foreclosure Opinion and Erie Guess Went Too Far
Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett authors a published opinion, taking issue with a prior panel, including Chief Judge Owen-Hecht.
Neither Side of the Table Are Behavin’ Properly in this Lengthy Foreclosure Battle
Luna’s real estate lawyers have filed a motion to withdraw as they don’t do federal defense of foreclosures but nearly all are snap removed.
The Craig Mynard Foreclosure Fraud: By Bandit Lawyer Jason Leboeuf and Epiphany Properties et al
This scam foreclosure case is a prime example of the collusion and fraud between the courts and lawyers on both sides of the table.
Pro Se Charles Mosely Has Never Been Foreclosed and Never Had a TRO or Injunction in Harris County
Do you require a TRO or injunction to prevent foreclosure in Texas? No. LIT has hundreds if not thousands of cases where no injunction needed
14 Years of Carnage and Corruption: The Greatest Theft of Housing in Texas and American History
Join LIT live here, and on X as we write up this article providing irrefutable evidence of the greatest theft of citizens homes by TX Courts.
PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Legal Counsel Must Have Been Waiting for the Vacation Letter
Locke Lord have done absolutely zero on this case since it was removed in April 2023 and now Hedrick’s lawyers goin’ on vacation.
Bobby Stokey’s Biggest Investment is at Risk in Frisco, Texas
At a current market value of nearly one and a half million dollars, investment advisor Stokey’s homestead is facing foreclosure.
