Debt Collector

Who’s Baggin’ the For Sale By Owner Property before the Chief?

10823 Collingswood Dr, La Porte, TX 77571 is up for a steal. The only deciding factor is, how long till PHH take it from Bhagia?

LIT COMMENTARY

There’s a lot to be said about the intentional delays, the rental income generated by Bhagia as a result of the delays and both the Court and the Wolves failure to sanction Bhagia for a frivolous lawsuit. We’ll be swingin’ back to write more later.

Bookmark for our next update.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FINAL JUDGMENT INC. MEMORANDUM ISSUED ON OCT. 27, 2023 AND S.D. TEX. STILL VIOLATIN’ CITIZENS RIGHTS BY CHARGING FEES ON PACER FOR ‘CERTAIN’ FINAL JUDGMENTS, WHICH SHOULD BE FREE OF CHARGE. THEY ARE TRULY OUTLAWS IN DIRTY BLACK ROBES.

Pending before the Court1 is Defendant PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment.

(Dkt. No. 33.)

Based on a thorough review of the motion, arguments, and relevant law, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.2

I.                   BACKGROUND

The facts are undisputed.

(Dkt. No. 38.)

Plaintiffs Nanik Bhagia (“Bhagia”) and Saihat Corporation (“Saihat”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and for Temporary Injunction action on January 27, 2022, in the 189th Judicial District Court for Harris County, Texas.

(Dkt. No. 1 at 1.)

Defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

(Id.)

1 The parties consented to proceed before the Undersigned Magistrate Judge for all proceedings, including trial and final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. (Dkt. No. 26.)

2 The Court takes judicial notice of Defendant’s Exhibits B-C, consisting of (1) the Final Judgment, Cause No. 4:19-cv-00825, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, (2) the Judgment issued as mandate, Cause No. 21-20002, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and (3) the Opinion, Cause No. 21-20002, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The dispute pertains to claim of title to real property located at 10823 Collingswood Drive, La Porte, Texas 77571 (the “Property”).

(Dkt. No. 33 at 1.)

On August 4, 2004, Bryan Patrick Daniel and Martha Daniel (the “Daniels”) executed a Texas Home Equity Adjustable Rate Note (the “Note”), creating a valid lien on the property, payable to Ameriquest Mortgage Company for the principal sum of $82,500.00 with an interest rate of 8.55% per annum.

(Id. at 4.)

Deutsche is the trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Company.

(Dkt. No. 33-1 at 2.) Defendant is the servicer of the loan for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche”).

(Dkt. No. 33 at 4.)

The Property is part of the Fairmont Park East Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”), which subjected the Daniels to pay assessments according to its deeds and covenants.

(Id.)

To secure payment of the assessments, the HOA reserved a vendor’s lien interest in the Property that permitted a foreclosure sale upon default.

(Id.)

The HOA’s deeds and covenants subordinated the HOA lien to “any valid purchase money lien or valid lien securing the cost of construction or for home improvements.”

(Id.)

The Daniels defaulted, and the HOA filed a judicial foreclosure action. (Id. at 5.) The HOA did not join any other lienholders as a party to the foreclosure action.

(Id.)

The HOA proceeded with a constable’s sale of the Property on May 1, 2018, in which Saihat was the highest bidder, paying $30,500.00.

(Id.)

However, Defendant sought foreclosure because the mortgage lien that encumbers the Property was defaulted, and Plaintiffs instituted this action to enjoin Defendant from foreclosing.

(Id. at 1.)

Before this action commenced, Saihat was involved in litigation where Deutsche argued that their lien on the Property was superior to the HOA’s lien.

(Id. at 5.);

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Saihat Corp., No. 21-20002, 2021 WL 5830821 (5th Cir. Dec. 8, 2021).

As such, Deutsche claimed that their lien was superior to Plaintiffs’ interest since it survived the foreclosure sale.

(Id.)

The court held the “Deutsche Bank lien survives as a matter of law [and] Deutsche Bank is thus entitled to foreclose the property as against Saihat” because “[e]ither Deutsche Bank’s lien was senior to the HOA lien or Deutsche Bank’s lien was junior but survived the HOA foreclosure action because the HOA failed to join or give notice to Deutsche Bank.”

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 2021 WL 5830821, *4.

Saihat filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 6.)

Saihat subsequently appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment.

(Id.)

Defendant posted the Property to be sold at a trustee’s sale on February 1, 2022, in which Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking to restrain Defendant from pursuing foreclosure.

(Id.)

I.                   LEGAL STANDARDS

a.  Summary Judgment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) instructs the Court to “grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

See also Nall v. BNSF Ry. Co., 917 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2019).

The movant is tasked with the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for the motion and pointing to relevant excerpts in evidence that demonstrate the absence of genuine factual issues.

See Coastal Agric. Supply, Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 759 F.3d 498, 505 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).

The movant may also argue that the nonmovant failed to produce evidence in support of at least one element of a cause of action for which he bears the burden of proof.

See Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 335 (5th Cir. 2017).

If the movant satisfies the initial burden, it shifts to the nonmovant who must produce evidence of a genuine factual dispute; he may not merely rest on the allegations in his pleading.

See Coastal Agric. Supply, Inc., 759 F.3d at 505 (quoting Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005)).

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court bears the responsibility of taking the nonmovant’s evidence as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor.

Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)).

But the Court should not accept “[u]nsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, [or] unsupported speculation” as sufficient to carry the nonmovant’s burden. Brown v. City of Houston, Tex., 337 F.3d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 2003).

“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, the Court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

“In deciding unopposed summary judgment motions, the Fifth Circuit has noted that a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there was no opposition.”

Gonzales v. Abdurasulov, No. 3:22-CV-00654, 2022 WL 2717633, *1 (W.D. La. July 13, 2022) (citing Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 fn.3 (5th Cir. 1995)).

II.                DISCUSSION

Defendant brings forth five grounds to support their Motion for Summary Judgment.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 3.)

First, Defendant claims that Plaintiffs are not entitled to notice of acceleration or foreclosure as they are not a party to the deed of trust;

second, Plaintiffs are not entitled to a payoff as they are not a party to the deed of trust;

third, Plaintiffs’ claim to remove cloud from title fails as a matter of law;

fourth, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief because it cannot prevail on its underlying claims; and

fifth, Bhagia lacks standing to assert any claim or cause of action against Defendant concerning the Property.

(Id.)

Plaintiffs filed an untimely response asserting that they do not dispute the facts asserted by Defendant and have “no substantial response to the legal arguments and authorities” cited in Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

(Dkt. No. 38.)

A.     Bhagia lacks standing

Defendant argues that Bhagia lacks standing.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 11.)

There are three requirements that must be met to establish standing.

Tenth St. Residential Ass’n v. City of Dallas, Texas, 968 F.3d 492, 499 (5th Cir. 2020).

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is

(a) concrete and particularized; and

(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.

Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.

Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Specifically, Defendant claims that Bhagia does not have standing under the first requirement because “[n]owhere in the Petition do Plaintiffs allege that Bhagia personally owns or hold any interest in the Property or that Saihat Corporation has assigned any claim or cause of action it might have concerning the Property to Bhagia.”

(Dkt. No. 33 at 11.)

“As an aspect of justiciability, the standing question is whether the plaintiff has ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers on his behalf.”

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498–99 (1975) (citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).

“If the plaintiff does not claim to have suffered an injury that the defendant caused and the court can remedy, there is no case or controversy for the federal court to resolve.”

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2203 (2021) (citing Casillas v. Madison Ave. Assocs., Inc., 926 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 2019)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, it is Saihat who bought the Property at the constable’s sale after foreclosure.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 5.)

Bhagia is the President of Saihat but has not established his interest or personal stake in the outcome other than his status as President.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 11; Dkt. No. 1-1; Dkt. No. 38.)

As such, Plaintiffs fail to show how Bhagia suffered from an injury in fact.

(Id.)

Additionally, Plaintiffs responded to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with no substantive legal arguments to counter Defendant’s claims.

(Dkt. No. 38.)

Absent a showing of injury in fact, the Court finds Bhagia lacks standing.

B.     Saihat is not entitled to notice of acceleration or foreclosure

Defendant argues that Saihat is not entitled to notice of acceleration or foreclosure because Saihat is not a party to the deed of trust.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 6–7.)

“There is no requirement that personal notice be given to persons who were not parties to the deed of trust.”

Am. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Houston v. Musick, 531 S.W.2d 581, 588 (Tex. 1975).

“[N]otification duty extends ‘to the parties named on the requisite documents as the debtors, and not to other parties, known or unknown.’”

Id. (quoting Casstevens v. Smith, 269 S.W.3d 222, 229–30 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. denied)).

No legal duty is imposed onto a lender to give an intervening purchaser of property notice of sale when they are not the debtor, even if the lender has knowledge of the intervening purchase.

See Lawson v. Gibbs, 591 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

Notice of sale must be given at least 21 days before the date of sale by:

(1)   posting at the courthouse door of each county in which the property is located a written notice designating the county in which the property will be sold;

(2)  filing in the office of the county clerk of each county in which the property is located a copy of the notice posted under Subdivision

(1); and

(3) serving written notice of the sale by certified mail on each debtor who, according to the records of the mortgage servicer of the debt, is obligated to pay the debt.

Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002(b).

Here, Saihat is neither the debtor in default nor the debtor obligated to pay the debt according to the records of the mortgage servicer.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 7.)

The debtors that are guaranteed written notice are the Daniels since they are the borrowers under the mortgage secured by the deed of trust.

(Dkt. No. 33-1 at 13–29.)

Defendant did not have an obligation to provide written notice of sale or acceleration to Saihat since it is not the debtor in default and Saihat has not proven otherwise.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 1; Dkt. No. 38.)

Defendant and Saihat agree that no notice was given to Saihat however, there was no obligation as a matter of law to provide Saihat with notice.

Lawson, 591 S.W.2d at 295.

As such, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.

C.     Saihat is not entitled to a payoff amount

Saihat alleges that Defendant failed to follow proper procedure in not responding to Saihat’s request for a payoff amount.

(Dkt. No. 1-1 at 6.)

Defendant argues that Saihat is not entitled to a payoff amount as Saihat is not a party to the deed of trust.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 3.)

A purchaser who is neither a party to the deed of trust nor assumed the position of borrower after purchasing an interest in the property from an HOA is not “entitled to receive a payoff amount or any other notice to survive summary judgment.”

Gonzalez Equities, Ltd. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. SA-14-CV-1087-XR, 2015 WL 3407357, *3 (W.D. Tex. May 26, 2015).

“Section 51.002 does not require that a debtor receive notification of the payoff amount prior to foreclosure” and no such duty is owed to someone who is not a debtor.

Sanders v. Shelton, 970 S.W.2d 721, 726 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. denied) (citing In re Davis Chevrolet, Inc., 135 B.R. 29, 32 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Tex. 1992)).

Here, Saihat is not the debtor or borrower under the mortgage secured by the deed of trust.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 8.)

The debtors that have a right to receive notification of the payoff amount are the Daniels, and that duty is not imposed prior to foreclosure.

Sanders, 970 S.W.2d at 726.

Defendant has no duty to notify Saihat of the payoff amount since Saihat is not the debtor of the deed of trust and Saihat has not offered evidence otherwise.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 1; Dkt. No. 38.)

Defendant and Saihat agree that no notification of a payoff amount was given to Saihat however, there was no obligation as a matter of law to provide Saihat with such information.

Sanders, 970 S.W.2d at 726.

As such, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.

D.     Saihat’s claim to remove cloud from title fails

Saihat alleges that if the Property is sold at a foreclosure sale, the title in the Property will be clouded causing Saihat to suffer a loss of $40,000 and the family at the Property will be evicted during Covid.

(Dkt. No. 1-1 at 6.)

“A suit to clear title or quiet title—also known as a suit to remove cloud from title—relies on the invalidity of the defendant’s claim to the property.”

Morlock, L.L.C. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 586 F. App’x 631, 633 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d 366, 388 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied)).

“The plaintiff must prove, as a matter of law, that he has a right of ownership and that the adverse claim is a cloud on the title that equity will remove.”

Essex Crane Rental Corp., 371 S.W.3d at 388 (quoting Hahn v. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517, 531 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied)).

“In order to prevail on a claim to quiet title, a plaintiff must show that:

(1) he has an interest in a specific property,

(2) title to the property is affected by a claim by the defendant, and

(3) the claim, although facially valid, is invalid or unenforceable.”

Hurd v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 880 F. Supp. 2d 747, 766 (N.D. Tex. 2012).

Here, Saihat fails to prove that removing cloud from title is a proper remedy.

(Dkt. No. 33 at 10.)

On the contrary, the Fifth Circuit held that the lien on the Property was superior to Saihat’s interest.

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 2021 WL 5830821, *4.

Saihat has not proven that there is a factual dispute regarding the superiority of title to the Property, but rather asserts a conclusory allegation that the title is clouded.

(Dkt. No. 1-1 at 6.)

Additionally, Saihat has stated that there are no disputes as to the facts Defendant has recited in the Motion for Summary Judgment.

(Dkt. No. 38.)

As such, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.

E.     Saihat’s claim for injunctive relief cannot prevail

Defendant argues that Saihat’s “request for injunctive relief is improper because the underlying claims fail as a matter of law and fact.”

(Dkt. No. 33 at 10.);

Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV H-14-283, 2014 WL 3796413, *2 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2014)

(“Because all of plaintiff’s underlying claims fail as a matter of law, her requests for injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees likewise must be denied.”).

“To obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff is required to plead and prove, inter alia, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.”

Wells v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 3:13-CV-3658-M, 2015 WL 4269089, *9 (N.D. Tex. July 14, 2015) (citing Jackson v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 4:11–CV–507–A, 2011 WL 3874860, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Sept.1, 2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because Saihat has failed to provide any evidence of a dispute of material fact and Saihat’s claims fail as a matter of law, the request for injunctive relief must be denied.

As such, the Court finds that Saihat’s request for injunctive relief fails.

IV.                CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 33) and Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SIGNED in Houston, Texas on October 27, 2023.

Sam S. Sheldon
United States Magistrate Judge

Bhagia v. PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.

(4:22-cv-00452)

“CAN’T Y’ALL SEE THE FOR SALE SIGN IN THE WINDOW. JUST WAIT TILL I SELL THE HOME” – Doc. Bhagia.

District Court, S.D. Texas

MAR 3, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 3, 2022

ORDER Scheduling Rule 16 Conference With the Court and Setting Out the Requirements for Initial Pretrial Work.

Initial Conference set for 3/18/2022 at 12:00 PM by video before Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal. A Zoom link will be provided.

(Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement) Parties notified.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 02/16/2022)

MINUTE ENTRY ORDER:

On July 28, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 33.)

Plaintiffs’ response was due on or before August 18, 2023.

On August 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

(Dkt. No.  34.)

The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time on August 21, 2023.

(Dkt. No. 35.)

Per the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond was extended to August 24, 2023.

(Dkt. No. 35.)

On September 12, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of No Response to  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

(Dkt. No. 36.)

As of the date of this Order,

Plaintiffs have failed to file a response.

It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs file a response to  Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment by September 27, 2023.

___________________

SIGNED in Houston, Texas, the 20th of September, 2023.

Sam Sheldon United States Magistrate Judge

LIT: So this is what a minute entry order looks like when the court actually provides one in SD Tex.

NOTICE of No Response by Plaintiff re: 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment And Brief In Support by PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,, filed. (Frame, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/12/2023)

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00452

Bhagia et al v. PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Sam S Sheldon

Case in other court:  189th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Te, case number 22-05420

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 02/10/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
04/10/2023 28 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 4/11/2023 at 11:00 AM in by video before Magistrate Judge Sam S Sheldon, filed. (sjones, 4) (Entered: 04/10/2023)
04/11/2023 29 MINUTE ENTRY ORDER: The Court conducted a status conference. The parties shall file a proposed Scheduling Order. Appearances: Jerry L Schutza, Nicholas Michael Frame. Ct Reporter: ERO. Digital Number: 11:00-11:02AM.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Sam S Sheldon) Parties notified.(sjones, 4) (Entered: 04/11/2023)
04/21/2023 30 Scheduling Order by PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,, filed.(Frame, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/21/2023)
04/24/2023 31 SCHEDULING ORDER. ETT: 1 day. Bench Trial. Amended Pleadings due by 4/28/2023. Joinder of Parties due by 4/28/2023 Pltf Expert Witness List due by 5/15/2023. Pltf Expert Report due by 5/15/2023. Deft Expert Witness List due by 5/26/2023. Deft Expert Report due by 5/26/2023. Discovery due by 6/15/2023. Dispositive Motion Filing due by 7/31/2023. Non-Dispositive Motion Filing due by 8/21/2023. Responses due by 8/14/2023. Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/20/2023. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/6/2023 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 700 before Magistrate Judge Sam S Sheldon. Bench Trial set for 12/4/2023 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 700 before Magistrate Judge Sam S Sheldon(Signed by Magistrate Judge Sam S Sheldon) Parties notified.(sjones, 4) (Entered: 04/24/2023)
05/26/2023 32 DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS LIST by PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Frame, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/26/2023)
07/28/2023 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment And Brief In Support by PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/18/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Frame, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/28/2023)
08/17/2023 34 MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond To Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment by Nanik Bhagia, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/7/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Schutza, Jerry) (Entered: 08/17/2023)
08/21/2023 35 ORDER granting 34 Motion for Extension of Time; Motion-related deadline set re: 34 MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond To Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment. Responses due by 8/24/2023..(Signed by Magistrate Judge Sam S Sheldon) Parties notified.(ShannonJones, 4) (Entered: 08/21/2023)
09/12/2023 36 NOTICE of No Response by Plaintiff re: 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment And Brief In Support by PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,, filed. (Frame, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/12/2023)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
09/12/2023 23:39:49

Guess what folks, curry town corruption has this case reset once more…

NOTICE of Resetting.

Parties notified. Status Conference reset for 2/23/2023 at 01:50 PM by video before Judge Lee H Rosenthal, filed.

A Zoom link will be provided.

Reset based on request from both parties.

(leddins, 4) (Entered: 02/15/2023)

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00452

Bhagia et al v. PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,
Assigned to: Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal

Case in other court:  189th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Te, case number 22-05420

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 02/10/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
01/26/2023 18 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 2/15/2023 at 03:30 PM by video before Judge Lee H Rosenthal, filed. A Zoom link will be provided. (leddins, 4) (Entered: 01/26/2023)
01/31/2023 19 NOTICE of Resetting. Parties notified. Status Conference reset for 2/15/2023 at 11:00 AM by video before Judge Lee H Rosenthal, filed. NOTE: The change is to TIME only. (leddins, 4) (Entered: 01/31/2023)
02/15/2023 20 NOTICE of Resetting. Parties notified. Status Conference reset for 2/23/2023 at 01:50 PM by video before Judge Lee H Rosenthal, filed. A Zoom link will be provided. Reset based on request from both parties. (leddins, 4) (Entered: 02/15/2023)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
02/15/2023 12:44:36

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Plaintiffs Nanik Bhagia and Saihat Corporation (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant PHH Mortgage Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively the “Parties”) file this Joint Status Report as ordered by the Court (ECF No. 16, Minute Entry on July 14, 2022) and respectfully show the Court as follows:

Plaintiffs submitted an offer to Defendant, which is currently being reviewed by Defendant. Defendant needs to conduct an appraisal of the Property to properly consider Plaintiffs’ offer. An exterior appraisal has been conducted.

The Parties are in the process of arranging an interior appraisal.

The Parties believe that non-binding mediation may be useful to resolve the issues in this case if the settlement discussions fail.

Furthermore, the Parties have discussed a potential mediator, Honorable John Coselli, former judge for the 125th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, to mediate this dispute.

The Parties respectfully request the opportunity to mediate this dispute prior to a trial setting.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Nicholas M. Frame
MARK D. CRONENWETT
Attorney in Charge Texas Bar No. 00787303
Southern District Admission # 21340 mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com
NICHOLAS M. FRAME
Of Counsel
Texas Bar No. 24093448
Southern District Admission #3121681 nframe@mwzmlaw.com

MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, P. C.
14160 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 635-2650
Facsimile: (214) 635-2686

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
/s/ Jerry Schutza

Jerry Schutza SBN: 17853800
815 Walker, Ste. 1453
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone (713) 963 9988
Facsimile: (713) 963 0085 Email: schutzalaw@yahoo.com Attorney for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 11, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via e-service on the following counsel of record:

Jerry L. Schutza
815 Walker Street, Suite 1453
Houston, Texas 77002

/s/ Nicholas M. Frame
NICHOLAS M. FRAME

Minute entry for proceedings before the Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal.

Initial conference held on July 14, 2022.

(NOTICE of Appearance by Suzanne Suarez on behalf of PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,, filed. (Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 07/14/2022))

The parties must file a status report by August 11, 2022.

If settlement is not final or near final, the court will set a date for trial at that time.

Appearances: Jerry Schutza for Pltfs. and Suzanne Suarez for Deft.

(Court Reporter: G. Dye), filed.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 07/14/2022)

 

Suzanne Suarez, Senior Attorney

Suzanne Suarez joined Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C. in June 2021 as a Senior Attorney in the Litigation Department.

Suzanne has practiced in the field of default services since 2012 with particular experience with probate, eviction, and home equity foreclosure issues. She earned her B.A. from the University of Texas at Arlington and her J.D. from Texas Wesleyan Law School (n/k/a Texas A&M University School of Law).

Suzanne is duly licensed to practice law in all Texas Courts and the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Texas.

Phone: (214) 635-2679
Fax: (214) 635-2686
ssuarez@mwzmlaw.com

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00452

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Bhagia et al v. PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,
Assigned to: Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal

Case in other court:  189th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Te, case number 22-05420

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 02/10/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
07/14/2022 15 NOTICE of Appearance by Suzanne Suarez on behalf of PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,, filed. (Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 07/14/2022)
07/14/2022 16 Minute entry for proceedings before the Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal. Initial conference held on July 14, 2022. The parties must file a status report by August 11, 2022. If settlement is not final or near final, the court will set a date for trial at that time. Appearances: Jerry Schutza for Pltfs. and Suzanne Suarez for Deft.(Court Reporter: G. Dye), filed.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 07/14/2022)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
07/15/2022 09:53:26

Minute entry for proceedings before the Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal.

Initial conference held on June 13, 2022.

An initial conference is rescheduled for July 14, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. C.D.T. by video.

A zoom link will be separately sent. If the parties do not settle by July 14, an expedited scheduling order will be entered.

Appearances: Jerry Schutza for Pltfs. and Nicholas Frame. for Deft.

(Court Reporter: L. Wells), filed.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 06/13/2022)

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00452

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Bhagia et al v. PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,
Assigned to: Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal

Case in other court:  189th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Te, case number 22-05420

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 02/10/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
05/24/2022 13 NOTICE of Resetting. Parties notified. Initial Conference reset for 6/13/2022 at 02:00 PM by video before Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal, filed. A Zoom ink will be provided. (leddins, 4) (Entered: 05/24/2022)
06/13/2022 14 Minute entry for proceedings before the Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal. Initial conference held on June 13, 2022. An initial conference is rescheduled for July 14, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. C.D.T. by video. A zoom link will be separately sent. If the parties do not settle by July 14, an expedited scheduling order will be entered. Appearances: Jerry Schutza for Pltfs. and Nicholas Frame. for Deft.(Court Reporter: L. Wells), filed.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 06/13/2022)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/26/2022 15:36:59

Initial conference held on April 22, 2022.

The initial conference is reset for May 25, 2022, at 11:30 AM CDT, by video.

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00452

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Bhagia et al v. PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,
Assigned to: Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal

Case in other court:  189th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Te, case number 22-05420

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 02/10/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
03/16/2022 5 JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Frame, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/16/2022)
03/17/2022 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Jerry L. Schutza on behalf of Saihat Corporation, filed. (Schutza, Jerry) (Entered: 03/17/2022)
03/18/2022 7 Minute entry for proceedings before the Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal. Initial conference held on March 18, 2022. The court and the parties conferred. The initial conference is reset for April 4, 2022, at 5:30 p.m., by Zoom. Appearances: Jerry Schutza for Pltf. and Nicholas Frame for Deft.(Court Reporter: D. Smith), filed.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 03/21/2022)
03/21/2022 8 NOTICE of Service of its Initial Rule 26 Disclosures, by PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,, filed. (Frame, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/21/2022)
04/01/2022 9 NOTICE of Resetting. Parties notified. Initial Conference reset for 4/8/2022 at 10:30 AM by video before Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal, filed. A Zoom link will be provided. NOTE: Reset is based on this court’s trial docket. (leddins, 4) (Entered: 04/01/2022)
04/08/2022 10 Minute entry for proceedings before the Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal. Initial conference held on April 8, 2022. The initial conference is rescheduled for 2:00 p.m. CST on April 22, 2022, by video. A zoom link will be separately sent. Appearances: Jerry Schutza for Pltf. and Nicholas Frame for Deft.(Court Reporter: H. Alcaraz), filed.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 04/08/2022)
04/12/2022 11 NOTICE of Resetting. Parties notified. Initial Conference reset for 4/22/2022 at 11:10 AM by video before Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal, filed. Note: The change is to TIME only. (leddins, 4) (Entered: 04/12/2022)
04/22/2022 12 Initial conference held on April 22, 2022. The initial conference is reset for May 25, 2022, at 11:30 AM CDT, by video. A zoom link will be separately sent Appearances: Jerry Schutza for Pltfs. and Nicholas Frame for Deft.(Court Reporter: H. Alcaraz), filed.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 04/22/2022)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
04/28/2022 02:51:13

New comment on your post

Why Has Kerry Johnston Retained Sheroo Bhagia and Why Has Cronenwett Been Replaced by Akerman?

Author: Wanda Wilcox

Comment:

I’m a next-door-neighbor to one of Nanik’s dilapidated houses.

It’s got renters who are so trashy in it.

The cops have been called on this lady 15 times.

She leaves her children in the house with rats, flies maggots and no food.

We have called CPS, DA, HUD, me nanik, to no avail.

What is wrong with our elected officials?

They’re all scumbags.

The Chief Judge Lee “It’s me against you” Rosenthal is way out front in terms of assignments of foreclosures in S.D. Texas for the first 6 months in 2022.

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER

PHH Mortgage Services, Inc. (“Defendant” or “PHH”), files this its Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and for Temporary Injunction (“Petition”) and respectfully shows as follows:

I. ANSWER

Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant generally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ Petition, and any amendments or supplements thereto, and demands strict proof thereof.

II. DEFENSES

Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses:

1. Plaintiff Saihat Corporation is not properly before this Court because a nonattorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation.

Dell Dev. Corp. v. Best Indus. Uniform Supply, 743 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ denied).

2. Defendant denies that all conditions precedent to a right of recovery have been satisfied.

3. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or any failure to perform is excused by the doctrines of affirmation, ratification, unclean hands and waiver.

4. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or any failure to perform is excused by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.

5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the election of rights doctrine.

6. One of more of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the “one satisfaction” and “con- tort” doctrines, or “economic loss” rule.

7. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages.

8. Defendant claims all offsets and credits available to it.

9. Defendant is not liable for the acts, omissions, or conduct of other persons or entities not authorized to act on behalf of them; pleading further, and in the alternative, Defendant is not liable for the acts, omissions, or conduct of its agents who exceeded the scope of their authority.

10. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were proximately caused by the acts, omissions, or breaches of other persons and entities, including Plaintiffs, and the acts, omissions, or breaches were intervening and superseding causes of Plaintiffs’ damages, if any.

11. Defendant’s actions and omissions, if any, were undertaken in good faith, with the absence of malicious intent to injure Plaintiffs, and constitute lawful, proper and justified means to further the business purposes of Defendant.

Any purported conduct of individuals who were or are agents of Defendant were privileged, and those individuals were and are justified in engaging in the conduct attributed to them. Defendant pleads all statutory and common law privileges that may apply to its conduct and those of its agents.

12. Any allegedly wrongful acts or omissions of Defendant, if and to the extent such acts and omissions occurred, were legally excused or justified.

13. Defendant would show its conduct or activity conformed at all times to any and all applicable state and federal statutes, codes, and regulations.

14. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of judicial estoppel, collateral estoppel, quasi estoppel, contractual estoppel, equitable estoppel and res judicata.

15. Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.

16. Any alleged wrongful acts or omissions of Defendant, if and to the extent such acts or omissions occurred, were not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error.

17. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

18. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, due to lack of standing.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that Plaintiffs take nothing on their claims; Defendant recover its attorneys’ fees and costs; and the Court award such other and further relief to which Defendant may be justly entitled at law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Nicholas M. Frame

MARK D. CRONENWETT
Texas Bar No. 00787303
mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com

NICHOLAS M. FRAME
Texas Bar No. 24093448
nframe@mwzmlaw.com

MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, P. C.
14160 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 635-2650
Facsimile: (214) 635-2686

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned further certifies that on February 10, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was delivered via regular mail to the following party:

Nanik Bhagia
P.O. Box 509 Barker, Texas 77413
Tel: 281-748-9212 Fax: 281-398-5309
Bhagia1@hotmail.com

/s/ Nicholas M. Frame
NICHOLAS M. FRAME

Automated Certificate of eService

This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Alma Cruz on behalf of Nicholas Frame Bar No. 24093448

acruz@MWZMlaw.com Envelope ID: 61625714

Status as of 2/10/2022 12:53 PM CST

 

Case Contacts

 

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Susan Taplin staplin@mwzmlaw.com 2/10/2022 11:52:59 AM SENT
Nanik Bhagia Bhagia1@hotmail.com 2/10/2022 11:52:59 AM SENT
Vanee Alfred valfred@mwzmlaw.com 2/10/2022 11:52:59 AM SENT
Nicholas Frame Nframe@mwzmlaw.com 2/10/2022 11:52:59 AM SENT
Alma Cruz acruz@mwzmlaw.com 2/10/2022 11:52:59 AM SENT
Mark D. Cronenwett mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com 2/10/2022 11:52:59 AM SENT

Bandit Vilt n’ Vlad Rags Removed to Federal Court to Be With Friends

Another Deutsche Bank National Trust Co case blindly assigned to Judge Keith Ellison when Bandit Lawyer Clay Vilt is counsel.

Who is Judge Kyle Carter, 125th District Court, Harris County, Texas?

Judge Kyle Carter worked himself into the Real Scumbags Series on LIT and his recent actions raised red flags, so we went diggin’.

Real Scumbags Series: Jerry Schutza’s Texas Corporations and Litigation Reveal His Client List

We don’t believe in client attorney privilege and client confidentiality when it’s a public record, so leave that argument at the door.

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00452

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Bhagia et al v. PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,
Assigned to: Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal

Case in other court:  189th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Te, case number 22-05420

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 02/10/2022
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Nanik Bhagia represented by Nanik Bhagia
P.O. Box 509
Barker, TX 77413
281-748-9212
Fax: 281-398-5309
PRO SE
Plaintiff
Saihat Corporation represented by Saihat Corporation
P.O. Box 509
Barker, TX 77413
281-748-9212
Fax: 281-398-5309
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
PHH Mortgage Services, Inc., represented by Nicholas Michael Frame
Mackie Wolf Zientz Mann, P.C.
5177 Richmond Avenue
Suite 1230
Houston, TX 77056
713-730-3219
Email: nframe@mwzmlaw.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
02/10/2022 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, case number 202205420 (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATXSDC-27735354) filed by PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 02/10/2022)
02/10/2022 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by PHH Mortgage Services, Inc.,, filed.(Frame, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/10/2022)
02/16/2022 3 ORDER Scheduling Rule 16 Conference With the Court and Setting Out the Requirements for Initial Pretrial Work. Initial Conference set for 3/18/2022 at 12:00 PM by video before Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal. A Zoom link will be provided. (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement) Parties notified.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 02/16/2022)
02/16/2022 4 ORDER on Initial Discovery Protocols for Residential Mortgage Cases.(Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4) (Entered: 02/16/2022)
Who’s Baggin’ the For Sale By Owner Property before the Chief?
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

To Top