At exactly the same time, the latest undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s allegation concerning your recording from a couple of lien releases did not bring about one plausible claim as the brand new launches, though connected with the house or property in question, concerned a separate financing unrelated to that suit
It Report and you can Testimonial questions the following three moves: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit from Situations to get Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Default Wisdom [#17], which the Courtroom construes since Plaintiff’s Activity to have Default Wisdom against Accused Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit off Points in support of Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amp Askanase Firm Standard View [#18], which the Judge construes just like the Plaintiff’s Motion to own Standard View facing Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and (3) Offender Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Rule 12(b)(6) Activity to help you Disregard with Prejudice [#21]. Pursuing the Region Judge used brand new undersigned’s early in the day declaration and you will testimonial, the fresh Legal re also-referred this example for the undersigned to have mood of all the left pretrial issues [#28]. The brand new undersigned provides power to go into that it testimonial pursuant to help you twenty eight You.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Toward reasons set forth less than, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion getting Standard Wisdom facing Accused Ginnie Mae [#17] be Denied; Plaintiff’s Actions for Standard Judgment facing Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] become Overlooked Since MOOT; and you will Accused Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Code several(b)(6) Motion so you’re able to Write off which have Bias [#21] end up being Provided. The undersigned subsequent recommends your Region Court disregard as opposed to prejudice Plaintiff’s leftover states against Ginnie Mae sua sponte.
Plaintiff Sammy Lee Trees, Jr., proceeding pro se, submitted his Grievance into [#3] facing Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Loan Repair, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you may Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s claims question assets located at 7727 Windview Method, San Antonio, Texas 78244 and you will a supposedly unlawful take to in the foreclosures. (Compl. [#3] at the 2, 33.) Plaintiff’s Criticism, although extended, includes few factual allegations as well as does not have a description out of the latest functions to be able to identify this new alleged misconduct of your own some Defendants. (Id. at dos.) What can cause step asserted inside the Plaintiff’s Problem are not sure, however, Plaintiff is apparently asserting claims out-of wrongful foreclosure, violation from contract, fraud, and you can denial of owed procedure, https://servicecashadvance.com/title-loans-il/chicago-heights/ and violations of one’s Tx Team and you can Commerce Password §step three.603, possible Inside Credit Work (“TILA”), the true Property Payment Procedures Act (“RESPA”), this new Racketeer Swayed and you will Corrupt Groups Act (“RICO”), and the Consistent Commercial Code (“UCC”). (Id. at step 3-28.) Connected with Plaintiff’s Ailment are specific data files you to allegedly support his says. (Id. in the 33-sixty.)
Although not, construing Plaintiff’s Complaint or any other pleadings liberally, it seems that he’s alleging which he renegotiated his financing with a brand new promissory notice towards the , hence mention efficiently paid off the mortgage in a manner that people test during the foreclosures is illegal
Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Loan Maintenance, and you may Loancare moved to write off Plaintiff’s claims pursuant so you can Government Signal regarding Civil Processes twelve(b)(6), together with undersigned given a report and you may recommendation recommending brand new actions end up being granted into [#19]. About declaration, new undersigned figured Plaintiff’s allegation which he came across the amount owed to the their financing by the submission yet another mention in order to Flagstar Lender didn’t produce one facially plausible allege, because the notice linked to Plaintiff’s Grievance appeared to be unilaterally written and you will conducted by Plaintiff from inside the attempt to customize the loan’s words. Eventually, the new undersigned learned that Plaintiff’s says around RILA, Controls Z, and RESPA was indeed banned of the ruling statute off limitations and Plaintiff’s UCC and you will Colorado Providers and Business Code states hit a brick wall given that an issue of rules because these guidelines do not govern liens for the houses.
