Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. (f.k.a. Fremont Investment & Loan) et al, No. 4:2014cv02700 - Document 36 (S.D. Tex. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. JPMC's motion to dismiss 4 Powell's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(6), and 9(b) is GRANTED with prejudice; BANAs amended motion to dismiss 14 is GRANTED withprejudice; SPS and U.S. Bank N.A.s motion for summary judgment 16 is GRANTED and all causes of action in the First Amended Complaint against SPS and U.S. Bank N.A. are DISMISSED with prejudice; and Littons motion for summary judgment 27 based on statute of limitations bars and erroneous legal theoriesis GRANTED and all causes of action in the First Amended Complaintagainst Litton.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rhawkins)

Download PDF

Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. (f.k.a. Fremont Investment & Loan) et al Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION KELLI J. POWELL, § § Pro Se Plaintiff, § § VS. § § LITTON LOAN SERVICING, L.P., § (f.k.a. FREMONT INVESTMENT & § LOAN), JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, § N.A. (f.k.a. EMC MORTGAGE CORP)§ WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., BANK OF§ AMERICA (f.k.a. LaSALLE BANK, § N.A.), BEAR STEARNS ASSET § BACKED SECURITIES, I, LLC, AND § SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, § INC., § § Defendants. § Civ. A. H-14-2700 OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court in the above referenced cause, removed from state court on federal question jurisdiction, seeking to stop a possible foreclosure on pro se Plaintiff Kelli Powell’s (“Powell’s”) residence at 1826 Stacy Crest, Houston, Texas (“the Property”) in addition to compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, and alleging slander of title, “un-recorded transfer void,” fraud, and suit to quiet title, are the following matters: (1) Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (“JPMC’s”) motion to dismiss (instrument #4) Powell’s First Amended Complaint (#1-3, Ex. C) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(6), and 9(b) and United States Magistrate Judge Frances Stacy’s memorandum and recommendation that it be granted with prejudice (#34); (2) Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s (“BANA’s”) amended motion to dismiss (#14) and the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation that it be granted with prejudice -1- Dockets.Justia.com (#35); (3) Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) and U.S. Bank N.A.’s1 motion for summary judgment (#16) and the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation that it be granted (#32); (4) Defendant Litton Loan Servicing, L.P.’s (“Litton’s”) motion for summary judgment (#27) and the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation that it be granted (#33). No objections have been filed to any of the memoranda and recommendations. Standard of Review Findings of the United States Magistrate Judge to which no specific objections are made require the Court only to decide whether each memorandum and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id., citing U.S. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Court’s Decision After carefully reviewing all motions and briefing, the applicable law, and the Magistrate Judge’s memoranda and recommendations, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has correctly summarized the law and applied it to the facts in this action. Accordingly, the Court 1 Successor trustee to Bank of America, N.A., successor in interest to LaSalle Bank N.A., as trustee, on behalf of the registered holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I, LLC, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-FR3 (“U.S. Bank”)(improperly named as Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I, LLC”). -2- ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s memoranda and recommendation as its own and ORDERS the following: (1) JPMC’s motion to dismiss (#4) Powell’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(6), and 9(b) is GRANTED with prejudice; (2) BANA’s prejudice; amended (3) SPS motion and to U.S. dismiss Bank (#14) N.A.’s is motion GRANTED for with summary judgment (#16) is GRANTED and all causes of action in the First Amended Complaint against SPS and U.S. Bank N.A. are DISMISSED with prejudice; and (4) Litton’s motion for summary judgment (#27) based on statute of limitations bars and erroneous legal theories is GRANTED and all causes of action in the First Amended Complaint against Litton. A final judgment will issue by separate document. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 18th day of June , 2015. ___________________________ MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.