Concurrently, the latest undersigned learned that Plaintiff’s allegation concerning your recording from a few lien releases don’t give rise to one possible allege because the the fresh new launches, even though pertaining to the property involved, concerned a special loan unrelated to that suit
It Statement and you can Recommendation questions the next around three moves: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit away from Activities meant for Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Default View [#17], which the Legal construes because Plaintiff’s Activity to possess Standard View up against Accused Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit regarding Activities meant for Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amplifier Askanase Law firm Standard View [#18], that your Courtroom construes because Plaintiff’s Actions to own Standard View against Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you can (3) Accused Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Rule several(b)(6) Actions to help you Discount that have Prejudice [#21]. Adopting the Section Legal adopted new undersigned’s past declaration and you can testimonial, the newest Court re-referred this situation towards undersigned to have vibe of all of the left pretrial matters [#28]. New undersigned features expert to go into so it testimonial pursuant in order to twenty eight U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). To your factors set forth less than, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Action to have Standard Judgment facing Offender Ginnie Mae [#17] become Refused; Plaintiff’s Motion to have Standard Judgment up against Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] be Dismissed Just like the MOOT; and you can Defendant Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Laws twelve(b)(6) Motion so you can Dismiss with Bias [#21] feel Provided. New undersigned next recommends your District Court write off instead prejudice Plaintiff’s remaining claims facing Ginnie Mae sua sponte.
Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., proceeding specialist se, submitted his Ailment on the [#3] against Defendants Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Mortgage Repair, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you can Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s claims concern assets found at 7727 Windview Method, San Antonio, Tx 78244 and you may a supposedly unlawful try within foreclosures. (Compl. [#3] at the 2, 33.) Plaintiff’s Complaint, regardless of if very long, consists of few factual allegations and even does not have a reason out-of this new activities in order to distinguish the brand new so-called misconduct of your certain Defendants. (Id. on dos.) The causes of action asserted inside Plaintiff’s Criticism are not sure, but Plaintiff appears to be saying states away from wrongful foreclosures, violation away from offer, fraud, and you can denial regarding due techniques, also violations of your Tx Company and Trade Code §step three.603, the scenario In the Financing Work (“TILA”), the genuine Home Payment Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the latest Racketeer Influenced and you can Corrupt Communities Work (“RICO”), as well as the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). (Id. at 3-twenty-eight.) Linked to Plaintiff’s Complaint are specific records you to presumably help his claims. (Id. within 33-sixty.)
But not, construing Plaintiff’s Issue or any other pleadings liberally, it would appear that he is alleging he renegotiated their mortgage with a brand new promissory mention to the , which mention effectively paid off the loan such that one decide to try within foreclosure are unlawful
Defendants Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Financing Upkeep, and you may Loancare relocated to dismiss Plaintiff’s states pursuant so you can Federal Rule out of Civil Process a dozen(b)(6), in addition to undersigned given a research and you will testimonial recommending the new activity feel granted with the [#19]. About report, the Rogers title loan and cash advance fresh new undersigned concluded that Plaintiff’s allegation that he found the total amount owed for the his mortgage from the distribution a special notice so you can Flagstar Financial don’t produce people facially plausible allege, once the note connected with Plaintiff’s Complaint appeared as if unilaterally drafted and you will done by Plaintiff within the just be sure to modify the loan’s terms and conditions. Eventually, the new undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s claims around RILA, Regulation Z, and you may RESPA was indeed banned from the governing law regarding constraints and you will Plaintiff’s UCC and you can Tx Business and Commerce Code claims hit a brick wall while the a matter of rules since these statutes don’t regulate liens on the property.