United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HARRIS TOLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case has been
referred to the United States magistrate judge for pretrial
management. Before the Court is Defendant Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings as to Jean Onuaguluchi. Doc. 16. For the
reasons stated here, the motion should be
Ejike Okpa (“Okpa”) and Jean Onuaguluchi
(“Onuaguluchi”) filed separate petitions in state
court, both seeking to stop foreclosure on the real property
and improvements located at 14403 Overview Drive, Dallas,
Texas 75254 (“the Property”). Doc. 1-1; Dkt. 1-1.
Both state cases were removed to this Court and subsequently
consolidated in this cause number. Doc. 1; Dkt. 1; Doc. 8;
Dkt. 10. Defendant Silver Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
(“Silver Portfolio”) now moves for judgment on
the pleadings as to Onuaguluchi. Doc. 16.
motion, Sliver Portfolio argues that since Onuaguluchi's
“request for injunctive relief is the only cause of
action [asserted, ]” she “fails to state a claim
that's valid on its face and should be dismissed pursuant
to Rule 12(c).” Doc. 17 at 4. Onuaguluchi was required
to file a response, if she opposed the relief requested, by
October 12, 2018, but has never done so. Thus, the Court
presumes she does not contest that motion to dismiss. That
notwithstanding, the Court finds that Silver Portfolio's
motion has merit.
motion brought pursuant to Rule 12(c) “is designed to
dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute
and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to
the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed
facts.” Hebert Abstract Co. v. Touchstone Props.,
Ltd., 914 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation
omitted). “After the pleadings are closed-but within
such time as not to delay the trial-any party may move for
judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).
request for injunctive relief “absent an underlying
cause of action is fatally defective.” Thomas v.
EMC Mortg. Corp., 499 Fed.Appx. 337, 343 n. 15 (5th Cir.
2012). Injunctive relief is an “equitable remedy, not
an independent cause of action.” Puente v.
CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 11-CV-2509, 2012 WL 4335997, at
*7 (N.D. Tex. 2012) (Godbey, J.) (citing Excel Mktg.
Solutions, Inc. v. Direct Fin. Solutions, LLC, No.
11-CV-0109, 2011 WL 1833022 at *4 (N.D. Tex. 2011)
Original Petition for Temporary Restraining Order Without
Notice, No. 18-1697, Doc. 1-1 at 5, Onuaguluchi seeks
injunctive relief to halt the foreclosure on the Property but
fails to assert an underlying cause of action. Onuaguluchi,
who is proceeding pro se, states that her cause
“is brought under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code.
65.001.” However, Section 65.001 only provides that
“principles governing courts of equity govern
injunction proceedings, ” and does not make available
any independent cause of action. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code
§ 65.001, Accordingly, Silver Portfolio's Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Jean Onuaguluchi,
Doc. 16, should be GRANTED, and
Onuaguluchi's original petition against Silver Portfolio
should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
of this report and recommendation will be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects
to any part of this report and recommendation must file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served
with a copy. See28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection must
identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate the
place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that
merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing
before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file
specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from
appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district
court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass
v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other
grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time
to file objections to 14 days).
 Okpa's original petition against
Silver Portfolio and Defendant Bank of New York Mellon
remains pending. Silver Portfolio and Bank of New York Mellon
have filed an Answer and Amended Answer to