On the other hand, the undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s allegation about your recording regarding several lien releases failed to give rise to any probable allege because the the fresh releases, even if about the property under consideration, concerned another loan not related to that particular match
That it Report and Recommendation questions another about three moves: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out of Points meant for Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Default Judgment [#17], that your Judge construes because the Plaintiff’s Motion to have Default View against Defendant Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit regarding Items in support of Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amplifier Askanase Firm Standard View [#18], that the Judge construes since the Plaintiff’s Actions to have Standard Judgment against Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and (3) Accused Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Code twelve(b)(6) Actions so you can Write off having Bias [#21]. Following Section Court observed the newest undersigned’s previous report and you may recommendation, the Judge re-introduced this situation towards undersigned getting state of mind of all leftover pretrial issues [#28]. Brand new undersigned keeps expert to enter so it testimonial pursuant so you can twenty eight U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Into the grounds set forth less than, we recommend that Plaintiff’s Actions getting Default Wisdom facing Accused Ginnie Mae [#17] feel Refused; Plaintiff’s Action to possess Default View up against Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] getting Disregarded Since the MOOT; and you will Defendant Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Rule a dozen(b)(6) Motion to Write off that have Prejudice [#21] be Supplied. The fresh new undersigned subsequent recommends the Section Judge disregard in place of bias Plaintiff’s kept states up against Ginnie Mae sua sponte.
Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., continuing expert se, filed his Grievance to the [#3] against Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Mortgage Maintenance, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you will Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s claims matter assets located at 7727 Windview Ways, San Antonio, Tx 78244 and you may a supposedly unlawful attempt on property foreclosure. (Compl. [#3] in the 2, 33.) Plaintiff’s Criticism, whether or not a long time, includes very few informative allegations as well as lacks a conclusion out-of the fresh functions so as to differentiate the newest so-called misconduct of some Defendants. (Id. within 2.) What causes action asserted within the Plaintiff’s Complaint are unsure, https://servicecashadvance.com/title-loans-ia/lisbon/ however, Plaintiff appears to be asserting states regarding unlawful foreclosure, violation regarding deal, ripoff, and you will assertion away from owed processes, including abuses of one’s Colorado Team and you can Business Code §step 3.603, the actual situation For the Lending Work (“TILA”), the genuine House Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the Racketeer Influenced and you may Corrupt Communities Act (“RICO”), therefore the Uniform Industrial Password (“UCC”). (Id. at the 3-28.) Attached to Plaintiff’s Problem are certain files that allegedly service their states. (Id. on 33-sixty.)
Although not, construing Plaintiff’s Criticism and other pleadings liberally, it seems that he’s alleging which he renegotiated his mortgage with a new promissory note into , and this notice efficiently reduced the mortgage in a fashion that any decide to try within foreclosures is illegal
Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Loan Upkeep, and you will Loancare relocated to discount Plaintiff’s states pursuant to Government Laws out of Civil Procedure a dozen(b)(6), plus the undersigned given a study and you will recommendation indicating the fresh new motion feel granted towards the [#19]. On the statement, the brand new undersigned figured Plaintiff’s allegation which he met the quantity owed to the his loan from the entry a different mention in order to Flagstar Financial didn’t produce one facially plausible allege, given that note attached to Plaintiff’s Issue appeared as if unilaterally written and you will conducted of the Plaintiff inside you will need to customize the loan’s terms and conditions. In the end, the brand new undersigned unearthed that Plaintiff’s claims around RILA, Controls Z, and RESPA was banned because of the governing law from limits and Plaintiff’s UCC and Tx Business and you may Trade Code says were unsuccessful because the a matter of rules since these guidelines don’t regulate liens into houses.
