Defendants Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Financing Upkeep, and you will Loancare gone to live in write off Plaintiff’s claims pursuant in order to Federal Rule out of Municipal Processes several(b)(6), and undersigned granted a research and recommendation https://servicecashadvance.com/payday-loans-nd/west-fargo/ suggesting the fresh new motion be provided towards the [#19]

This Declaration and you may Testimonial inquiries the second around three moves: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit away from Items in support of Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Standard Judgment [#17], that the Legal construes because Plaintiff’s Actions for Standard View facing Defendant Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Circumstances meant for Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amp Askanase Attorney Default Wisdom [#18], which the Court construes since Plaintiff’s Activity to possess Standard View up against Defendant Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you will (3) Offender Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Rule several(b)(6) Activity to help you Disregard that have Bias [#21]. Following Region Legal observed the newest undersigned’s previous report and you will testimonial, the new Legal re-referred this situation on the undersigned having feeling of all the remaining pretrial issues [#28]. This new undersigned keeps expert to enter it recommendation pursuant so you can twenty-eight You.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On explanations established less than, we recommend that Plaintiff’s Activity having Standard View against Accused Ginnie Mae [#17] end up being Denied; Plaintiff’s Action to possess Default Judgment facing Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] end up being Ignored While the MOOT; and you may Defendant Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Rule a dozen(b)(6) Motion to Discount which have Prejudice [#21] be Offered. New undersigned after that recommends the District Legal discount instead bias Plaintiff’s remaining says facing Ginnie Mae sua sponte.

Concurrently, this new undersigned learned that Plaintiff’s allegation about your recording from a couple of lien launches did not produce any probable claim given that the brand new releases, regardless if linked to the home under consideration, concerned a new loan not related to that suit

Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., continuing professional se, recorded his Criticism into the [#3] up against Defendants Flagstar Bank, Lakeview Mortgage Maintenance, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you can Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s states question possessions found at 7727 Windview Ways, San Antonio, Texas 78244 and you can an allegedly illegal test at property foreclosure. (Compl. [#3] at the dos, 33.) Plaintiff’s Problem, though very long, include few factual accusations plus lacks a description away from this new people so as to identify this new so-called misconduct of your own certain Defendants. Although not, construing Plaintiff’s Issue or other pleadings liberally, it would appear that he or she is alleging he renegotiated his mortgage with a new promissory mention towards , hence note effortlessly paid down the loan in a fashion that one test at the property foreclosure is actually unlawful. (Id. at 2.) What can cause action asserted when you look at the Plaintiff’s Grievance are unclear, but Plaintiff seems to be asserting claims off wrongful foreclosure, infraction away from bargain, con, and you may denial out-of owed process, and additionally abuses of Texas Organization and you can Business Code §3.603, the case For the Financing Act («TILA»), the actual Estate Settlement Tips Act («RESPA»), the latest Racketeer Influenced and you may Corrupt Groups Act («RICO»), together with Consistent Industrial Password («UCC»). (Id. within step 3-twenty-eight.) Linked to Plaintiff’s Issue are specific files you to presumably support their says. (Id. within 33-60.)

On report, the latest undersigned determined that Plaintiff’s allegation he fulfilled the total amount owed for the their loan because of the entry a different sort of mention so you can Flagstar Financial failed to bring about one facially possible allege, while the notice linked to Plaintiff’s Issue looked like unilaterally drawn up and you may carried out of the Plaintiff when you look at the you will need to modify the loan’s terms and conditions. Eventually, new undersigned found that Plaintiff’s says under RILA, Regulation Z, and you may RESPA had been banned by ruling law of constraints and you will Plaintiff’s UCC and you can Colorado Company and Business Password states failed once the a question of laws because these guidelines do not control liens to the real-estate.