United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
KENDALL L. PARKER, MONICA D. PARKER
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate
Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore
referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636. On April 21, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge
(Dkt. #34) was entered containing proposed findings of fact
and recommendations that Defendants Kendall L. and Monica D.
Parker's Consumers Demand for Dismissal with Prejudice
(Dkt. #21), Motion to Dismiss and Ratify Consumers Orders
Declarations and Decrees (Dkt. #32), and second Motion to
Dismiss and Ratify Consumers Orders Declarations and Decrees
(Dkt. #33) (collectively, the “Motions to
Dismiss”) be denied. Having received the report of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #34), having considered
Defendant's timely filed objections (Dkts. #35-36), and
having conducted a de novo review, the Court is of the
opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge are correct, and the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate
Judge's report (Dkt. #34) as the findings and conclusions
of the Court.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed the instant suit on May 27,
2016, seeking foreclosure of the real property located within
the boundaries of the Eastern District of Texas, at 4405
Rancho Del Norte Trail, McKinney, Collin County, Texas (Dkt.
#1). The Complaint alleges Plaintiff is a national banking
association with its principal place of business located in
California, Defendants are Texas residents, and the value of
the real property exceeds $75, 000.00. Plaintiffs assert that
Defendants executed a Note and a Deed of Trust to buy the
property in 2004, pursuant to which Defendants were required
to make timely payments on the principal amount of the loan.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants have defaulted on their
obligations under the Note by failing to make timely
payments, and despite having received notice of their
default, Defendants have not brought the Note current and
remain in default. As such, Plaintiff seeks to judicially
foreclose on the real property. Defendants have not yet filed
an answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, instead filing the
instant three Motions to Dismiss, arguing that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims
and/or personal jurisdiction over Defendants, that venue is
improper, that process and service of process were
insufficient, that Plaintiff failed to join indispensable
parties, and lastly that the Complaint fails to state a
Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation on April
21, 2017, recommending that each of Defendants Kendall L. and
Monica D. Parker's Consumers Demand for Dismissal with
Prejudice (Dkt. #21), Motion to Dismiss and Ratify Consumers
Orders Declarations and Decrees (Dkt. #32), and second Motion
to Dismiss and Ratify Consumers Orders Declarations and
Decrees (Dkt. #33) be denied. On May 8, 2017, Defendants
filed their Objections (Dkt. #35) to the report and
recommendation, and also a “Notice of Dispute”
(Dkt. #36), which the Court construes as additional
objections to the report and recommendation.
the law, a party who files timely written objections to a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation is entitled
to a de novo determination of those findings or
recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
However, “[p]arties filing objections must specifically
identify those findings [to which they object]. Frivolous,
conclusive or general objections need not be considered by
the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright,
677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc),
overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc);
Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. McLain, No. 1:12-CV-353,
2013 WL 713404, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2012).
objections assert that the Magistrate Judge erred by
identifying Defendants as citizens of Texas. Specifically,
Defendants, by and through their objections, continue to
allege that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them
and subject matter jurisdiction over this suit (and thus has
no jurisdiction to deny their Motions to Dismiss) because
Defendants “are non-resident aliens in relation to any
county and/or state[; and, as such] are aliens to the
jurisdiction of this court” and/or because “[t]he
United States District Court has absolutely NO jurisdiction
over natural persons dwelling in the continental United
States (i.e., the Consumers) or their consumer
transactions” (Dkt. #35 at 1). Defendants'
objections, in this regard, are frivolous. There is no
constitutional or other support, whatsoever, for the
allegations stated by Defendants in an attempt to escape the
jurisdiction of the Court and/or their payment obligations
under the loan. Indeed, Defendants' arguments are akin to
those asserted by persons alleging “sovereign
citizenry.” The Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution expressly provides that “[a]ll persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
the States wherein they reside.” U.S. Const. amend.
XIV, § 1. Claims that individuals are not citizens of
the United States and/or the state in which they reside, but
rather solely citizens of a sovereign state, have been
uniformly rejected by federal courts. See, e.g., Sochia
v. Federal-Republic's Cent. Gov't, No.
SA-06-1006-XR, 2006 WL 3372509, *5 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2006)
(noting that sovereign citizen arguments “have been
consistently and universally rejected by every federal court
that has considered them”). Here too, Defendants'
“consumer” claims must be rejected. Defendants
reside in the State of Texas; no showing has been made to the
contrary and Defendants' home (the issue of foreclosure
in the instant suit) is located at 4405 Rancho Del Norte
Trail, McKinney, Texas 75070. Any allegation that Defendants
are “aliens” and/or not resident in any county of
this state and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the
Court by virtue of their status as consumers is wholly
to the extent Defendants continue to argue the Court is not
the proper venue, because it “is not in the judicial
district or similar legal entity in which the Consumer's
personal dwelling and homestead is located, or in which the
Consumers signed the alleged contract sued upon, ”
Defendants' objections are misplaced. Venue is proper in
this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2); it cannot be
disputed that the property at issue is located in Collin
County, which is within the Eastern District of Texas.
the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the report and
recommendation and concludes that the Magistrate Judge's
findings and conclusions are correct. See Douglass,
79 F.3d at 1429 (noting that a district court may
alternatively find the magistrate judge's findings and
conclusions were correct even though a party did not properly
object to the report and recommendation). The Magistrate
Judge clearly outlined the basis for the Court's subject
matter jurisdiction in the instant case, concluding diversity
jurisdiction existed over Plaintiff's civil foreclosure
action. The Magistrate Judge similarly examined the basis for
the Court's personal jurisdiction and venue in the
Eastern District of Texas, correctly concluding that any
arguments as to personal jurisdiction and venue have been
waived and/or are substantively incorrect. The Magistrate
Judge further specifically found that Plaintiffs Complaint
stated a claim for judicial foreclosure and that Defendants
do not have a unilateral right to terminate Plaintiffs
claims. The Court agrees with this assessment. Accordingly,
the Court finds Defendants' objection is overruled.
considered Defendants' timely filed objection (Dkts.
#35-36), and having conducted a de novo review, the Court is
of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate
Judge's report (Dkt. #34) as the findings and conclusions
of the Court.
it is, ORDERED that Defendants Kendall L.
and Monica D. Parker's Consumers Demand for Dismissal
with Prejudice (Dkt. #21), Motion to Dismiss and Ratify
Consumers Orders Declarations and Decrees (Dkt. #32), and
second Motion to Dismiss and ...