Jones v. Nestor Solutions LLC et al, No. 4:2024cv01813 - Document 7 (S.D. Tex. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION entered: Nestor Solutions's motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 2), is granted. Jones has also named a number of individuals as defendants. According to the notice of removal, these named defendants are substitute trustees who are nominal defendants. These defendants are dismissed because the claims against them fail for the same reasons as the claims against Nestor. This case is dismissed. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified. (lle4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Nestor Solutions LLC et al Doc. 7 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ADRIENNE JONES, Plaintiff, V. NESTOR SOLUTIONS LLC, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § July 26, 2024 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-24-1813 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Adrienne Jones sued a number of defendants, including Nestor Solutions LLC, in Texas state court, seeking an emergency temporary restraining order and temporary injunction to prevent the foreclosure of her home because of her default. Nestor Solutions removed and has moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jones has not responded. She is representing herself, and therefore the court liberally construes her pleadings. Jones alleges that the defendants had failed to produce the original of the promissory note that Jones signed in 2016 to purchase the property in Missouri City that is at issue in this case. She seeks a declaratory judgment that no foreclosure can occur unless the defendants produce “the one and only Promissory Note signed by the Plaintiffs for inspection by the Plaintiffs and or their document examiner prior to proceeding with any foreclosure proceedings.” (Docket Entry No. 1, ¶ 20). Even with liberal construction, Jones fails to state a claim. To the extent Jones seeks an injunction prohibiting foreclosure, there is no foreclosure sale scheduled as of the date of the motion to dismiss. The courts have rejected similar show-me-the-note theories. Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249, 254 (5th Cir. 2013). Her claims for violation of the Texas Property Code, the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and the Texas Finance Code all Dockets.Justia.com fail because Jones has not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim and has not specified the Property Code or Business and Commerce Code portions that were violated, or how the violations occurred. Jones did cite §§ 392.303, 392.304, and 392.301 of the Texas Finance Code, but she does not allege what facts support the allegations or how those facts amounted to violations. Nestor Solutions’s motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 2), is granted. Jones has also named a number of individuals as defendants. According to the notice of removal, these named defendants are substitute trustees who are nominal defendants. These defendants are dismissed because the claims against them fail for the same reasons as the claims against Nestor. SIGNED on July 26, 2024, at Houston, Texas. _______________________________________ Lee H. Rosenthal United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
