Summary of judgment Plaintiffs haven’t responded to the mot

Summary of judgment Plaintiffs haven’t responded to the motion for… Summary of judgmentPlaintiffs haven’t responded to the motion for summary judgment. Dkt 16.  “It is well established in the Fifth Circuit that a federal court  may  not  grant  a  ‘default’  summary judgment  when no  response  has  been  filed.” Morgan  v  Federal  Express Corp,  114  F Supp  3d  434,  437  (SD  Tex  2015)  (quotation marks and alteration omitted), citing Eversley v MBank of Dallas, 843 F2d 172, 174 (5th Cir 1988). But if no response to  the  motion  for  summary  judgment  has  been  filed,  the court may find as undisputed the statement of facts in the motion  for  summary  judgment.  Ibid.  The  Fifth  Circuit likewise holds that when a nonmovant bears the burden of proof  at  trial,  a  movant  may  make  a  proper  summary judgment  motion  under  Rule  56  by  alleging  that  the nonmovant has “no evidence” of its claims. Austin v Kroger Texas LP, 864 F3d 326, 335 (5th Cir 2017, per curiam). As to claims by Plaintiffs, the Aguilars bring claims for (i)  trespass  to  quiet  title,  (ii) violation  of  section  51  of  the Texas  Property  Code,  (iii) violations  of  the Federal  Debt Collection  Practices  Act,  and  (iv)  violation  of  the  Equal Credit  Opportunity  Act.  They also  seek  declaratory  and injunctive  relief. Dkt  1-1  at  6-13. The  Aguilars bear  the burden of proof as to each of these claims.Franklin Credit asserts  that  the  Aguilars have  no Evidence supporting  their  claims.  It  further  submits  that undisputed  evidence  and  controlling  law  entitle it  to judgment  against  the  Aguilarson  these  claims  because, among other reasons, it hasn’t dispossessed the Aguilars Of the  property,  no  foreclosure  sale  has  occurred,  and Any claim for violation of the ECOA is time-barred. Dkt 13 at 9-16. Any  claim  for  declaratory  and  injunctive  relief likewise  fails,  it  says, Because the   Aguilars have   no  underlying viable cause of action. Id at 16-17. Franklin  Credit  is  entitled  to  summary  judgment  on these claims. As  to  counterclaims  by  Defendant, Franklin  Credit seeks  a  declaration  that  it provided  the Aguilars  with  all required  notices  of  default,  acceleration,  and  foreclosure sale,  and  Franklin  Credit  may  therefore proceed  with  a non-judicial foreclosure sale of the property. Dkt 2 at 10.Texas  law  requires the  holder  of a  security  interest with  a  power  of  sale  who  seeks  to  foreclose  to  show that(i)  a  debt  exists,  (ii)  the  debt  is  secured  by  a  lien  created under  Texas  law,  (iii )  the  borrower  is  in  default,  and (iv) the  borrower  has  been  properly  served  with  notice  of default  and  acceleration. Huston  v US  Bank  National Association,  988  F  Supp  2d  732,  740  (SD  Tex  2013). The Uncontradicted summary  judgment  evidence  proffered  by Franklin Credit conclusively  establishes each  of  these elements.  Franklin Credit also  establishes that  it  has Standing to foreclose. And foreclosure isn’t barred by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §16.035(a). Franklin Credit is entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaim. Background Defendant Carlos Aguilar executed a fixed rate note in April 2005. Dkt 13-1 at 15-16. The note was secured by a purchase money deed of trust signed by both Aguilar and his  wife,  Defendant Marisela Aguilar.  Id  at  18-25.  That security instrument established a subordinate lien on the property   commonly   known   as  14866   Dorray   Lane,  Houston,  Texas  77082. Franklin  Credit  has  serviced  the Loan at all times relevant to this dispute. Dkt 13 at 6 ; see also id at 38-83. Carlos Aguilar  failed  to  make  payments  under  the terms  of the loan,  and  Franklin  Credit  provided  timely 2 notices of default and intent to accelerate on June 9, 2020. Id  at  38-67.  It  then  provided  notices  of  acceleration  and foreclosure sale in June of 2021. Id at 70-72 (acceleration)&    75-83 (foreclosure sale). The  Aguilars filed  this  action  in  Texas  state court, Alleging (i) trespass to quiet title, (ii) violation of section 51 of  the  Texas  Property  Code,  (iii) violations  of  the  Federal Debt  Collection  Practices  Act,  and  (iv) violation  of  the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. They also seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Dkt 1-1 at 6-13. The Aguilars Secured a  temporary  restraining  order  prohibiting  a  scheduled foreclosure sale,  then  executed  a  general  warranty  deed purporting  to  convey  title  to  the  property  to  Third-Party Defendant Svetlana A. Pestova. Dkt1-1 at 18-19; see also Dkt 13-1 at 85-88. Franklin  Credit  removed.  Dkt  1.  It  then  answered, counterclaimed,  and  brought  a  third-party  claim  against Pestova. It seeks a declaratory judgment that (i)  Franklin Credit  provided  the  Aguilars  with  all  required  notices  of default,  acceleration,  and foreclosure  sale,  and  Franklin Credit    may    therefore    proceed    with    a    non-judicial foreclosure  sale  of  the  property; and  (ii) such  foreclosure sale   will   divest   Pestova   of   any   pUrported Ownership interest  she  may  have  in  the  property pursuant  to  the general  warranty  deed  she  allegedly  received  from  the Aguilars. Dkt 2. The Clerk entered default against Pestova on February 23,  2022. Dkt  15.  Franklin  Credit  now moves  for  default Judgment against her. Dkt 13. It also Moves for summary judgment on all claims brought by the Aguilars and on its counterclaim   against   them.   Ibid.   The   Aguilars   didn’t  respond. Default judgment Legal StandardRule  55  governs  applications  for  default  and  default  judgment. This involves sequential steps of default, entry of default, and default judgment. A default occurs “when a defendant has failed to plead or otherwise respond to the 3 complaints within the time required by the Federal Rules.”New  York  Life  Insurance  Co  v  Brown,  84 F3d  137,  141 (5th Cir 1996). An entry of default is what the clerk enters when  a  plaintiff  establishes  the  default  by  affidavit  or otherwise pursuant to Rule 55(a). A default judgment Can thereafter enter against a defendant upon application by a plaintiff pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2). The Fifth Circuit instructs that a default judgment is “a  drastic  remedy,  not  favored  by  the  Federal  Rules  and resorted to by courts only in extreme situations.”Sun Bank of  Ocala  v  Pelican  Homestead  &  Savings  Association, 874 F2d 274, 276 (5th Cir 1989). A plaintiff isn’t entitled to a default judgment as a matter of right, even if default has been entered against a defendant. Lewis v Lynn, 236 F3d 766, 767 (5th Cir 2001). Rather, a default judgment “must be ‘supported by well-pleaded allegations’ and must have ‘a sufficient  basis  in  the  pleadings.'” Wooten  v  McDonald Transit  Associates  Inc,  788 F3d  490,  498  (5th  Cir  2015) (citation  omitted).  The  well-pleaded  allegations  in  the complaint are assumed to be true, except those regarding Damages. Nishimatsu Construction Co v Houston National Bank, 515F2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir 1975); Meyer v Bayles, 559 F Appx 312, 313 (5th Cir 2014, per curiam). The   decision   to   enter   a   judgment   by   default   is  Discretionary. Stelax Industries Ltd v  Donahue,  2004 WL 733844,*11(ND Tex). “Any doubt as to whether to enter or Set aside  a  default  judgment  must  be  resolved  in  favor  of the  defaulting party.”John Perez Graphics& Design LLC V Green Tree Investment Group Inc,  2013 WL 1828671, *3(ND Tex),  citing Lindsey  v  Prive Corp,  161 F3d 886, 893(5th Cir1998).        2. AnalysisPestova was properly served and never answered. The entry  of  default  was  thus  deemed  appropriate  under Rule 55(a). Dkts 14 & 15. The remaining question concerns the propriety of entry of   default   judgment.   Three   inquiries   pertain   to   that  consideration.  The  first  is whether  the  entry  of  default judgment   is   procedurally   warranted.   The   second   is  whether the substantive merits of the plaintiff’s claims as stated in the pleadings provide a sufficient basis for default judgment.  And  the  last  is  whether  the  requested Relief Is Appropriate. Joe Hand Promotions Inc v Casison, 2019 WL 3037074, *2 (SD Tex).i. Procedural requirements The following factors are pertinent to whether default judgment is procedurally appropriate: First, whether  material  issues  of  fact  are  in Dispute; Second,  whether  there  has  been  substantial prejudice to the plaintiff; Third, whether  the  grounds  for  default  are clearly established; Fourth, whether  the  default  was  caused  by  a good-faith mistake or excusable neglect on the defendant’s part; Fifth, whether  default  judgment  is  inappro-priately harsh under the circumstances; and Sixth, whether  the  court  would  think  itself obliged to set aside the default upon motion by the defendant. Lindsey,  161  F3d  at  893,  citing  Charles  Alan  Wright  & Arthur  R.  Miller, Federal Practice  &  Procedure§  2685 (West 2d ed 1983). First, Pestova  hasn’t  answered  or  otherwise  defended this   action.   Franklin   Credit’s   well-pleaded   allegations  against Pestova are thus assumed to be true. Nishimatsu, 515 F2d at 1206. No material facts appear to be in dispute. See Innovative  Sports  Management  Inc  v  Martinez,  2017 WL 6508184, *3 (SDTex). Second, Franklin  Credit  has  naturally  experienced substantial prejudice. It served Pestova on September 11, 2021. Dkt 11. Yet Pestova hasn’t responded to this action, effectively  halting  the  adversarial  process.  See China International  Marine  Containers  Ltd  v  Jiangxi  Oxygen Plant Co, 2017 WL 6403886, *3 (SD Tex); Insurance Co of the West v H&G Contractors Inc, 2011 WL 4738197, *3 (SD Tex). Third, the  Clerk  properly  entered  default  against Pestova pursuant to Rule 55(a) because she didn’t answer or  otherwise  defend  this  action.  Dkts  14  &  15. Default judgment  is  likewise  appropriate because  she  still  hasn’t answered  or  otherwise  defended.  See United  States  v Padron,   2017   WL   2060308,   *3   (SD Tex); WB   Music  Corporation v  Big  Daddy’s  Entertainment  Inc, 2005  WL 2662553, *2 (WD Tex).Fourth, nothing  suggests  that  the  default  by  Pestova has been  the  product  of  good-faith  mistake  or  excusable neglect.  See Lindsey,  161  F3d  at 893; Innovative  Sports Management, 2017 WL 6508184 at *3.Fifth, nothing  suggests  that  it  would  be  too  harsh  to enter  default  judgment  against  Pestova.  Franklin  Credit served Pestova over eight months ago, yet she hasn’t taken any action to respond to this suit. See Joe Hand Promotions Inc v 2 Tacos Bar & Grill LLC, 2017 WL 373478, *2 (ND Tex),  citing Lindsey,  161  F3d  at 893; Insurance  Co  of  the West, 2011 WL 4738197 at *3. Sixth, nothing is apparent that would cause the default judgment to be set aside if Pestova was to challenge it. See Insurance Co of the West, 2011 WL 4738197 at*3. Given   the   foregoing,   entry   of   default   judgment  pursuant to Rule 55(b) is procedurally appropriate.ii. Substantive requirements Franklin  Credit  contends  that  a  foreclosure  sale  will divest  Pestova  of  any  purported  ownership  interest  she may have in the property as the general warranty deed she allegedly received from the Aguilars is subject to the deed Of trust. Dkt 2 at 10. But there still must be “a sufficient basis   in   the   pleadings   for   the   judgment   entered.”  Nishimatsu, 515 F2d at 1206. This is so because a default judgment  is  valid  “only  so  far  as  it  is  supported  by  well-pleaded allegations, assumed to be true.” Ibid.The  inquiry  is  thus  whether  the  third-Party claim  at issue  satisfies   Rule   8   of   the   Federal   Rules   of   Civil  Procedure. See Wooten v McDonald Transit Associates Inc, 788 F3d 490, 497-98 (5th Cir 2015). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a Counterclaim to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim  showing  that  the  pleader  is  entitled  to  relief.”  The Supreme Court holds that this “does not require ‘detailed factual   allegations,’   but   it   demands   more   than   an  Unadorned, “the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 US 662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp v Twombly, 550 US 544, 555 (2007). The factual allegations in Franklin Credit’s third-party complaint are  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  low  threshold  of Rule 8. Specifically, Franklin Credit provides the date that the  note  and  security  instrument  were  signed  and  the value   given   as   consideration. Dkt   2   at   8.   It Also demonstrates   that   these   instruments   were   properly  Recorded. Ibid. Franklin   Credit   therefore Adequately established that the Aguilars’ interest in the property was subject to the deed of trust. Any interest in the property the Aguilars  transferred  to  PEstova Thus continues  to  be subject  to  the deed  of  trust. See Motel  Entertainers  Inc  v Nobani, 784 SW2d 545, 547 (Tex App—Houston [1st Dist] 1990, no writ) ; see also Matter of Hamilton, 125 F3d 292, 299 (5th Cir 1997). The  substantive  merits  of  the  claims as  stated  in  the  complaint provide a sufficient basis for default judgment.iii. Appropriate remedies Franklin  Credit  doesn’t  seek  monetary  damages.  It instead   seeks   non-monetary   relief   in   the   form   of   a  declaratory  judgment  that  a  foreclosure  sale  pursuant  to The deed  of  trust  will  divest  Pestova  of  any  purported ownership  interest  she  may  have  in  the  propErty. Dkt  2 at 10. The Declaratory Judgment Act provides a district court the power to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not  further  relief  is  or  could  be  sought.”  28  USC  §2201. Rule 57  thus  provides  that  “the  existence  of  another adequate remedy does not preclude a declaratory judgment that is otherwise appropriate.” Declaratory  judgment  is  appropriate  here  given  the evidence  presented  by  Franklin  Credit,  the  sufficiency  of the proceedings in the action, and the failure by Pestova to respond or otherwise defend.Rational The  motion  by  Defendant  Franklin  Credit  Mortgage Corporation   for   default  judgment   against   Third-Party Defendant Svetlana A. Pestova is GRANTED. Dkt 13. The motion by Defendant Franklin Credit Mortgage for summary judgment on all claims brought by Plaintiffs    and on its counterclaim against Plaintiffs is GRANTED. Dkt 13. It is hereby DECLARED That Defendant Franklin Credit Mortgage   Corporation   may   foreclose   on   the   property  commonly  known  as  14866  Dorray  Lane,  Houston,  Texas 77082, and more particularly described as:LOT ONE (1), IN BLOCK ONE(1) OF OAK PARK   RIDGE,   SECTION   FOUR   (4)  -REPLAT   NO.   1,   A   SUBDIVISION   IN  HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO    THE    MAP    OR    PLAT    THEREOF   RECORDED IN FILM CODE NO. 554082 OF  THE  MAP  RECORDS  OF  HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. It  is  further DECLARED that  the  foreclosure  of the   aforementioned   property   will   divest   Third-Party   Defendant   Svetlana   A.   Pestova   of   any  purported ownership interest. The claims brought by Plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.A final judgment will enter separately. SO ORDERED.   1. What can be the legal brief of the case above?Statement of the issuesArguments of the plaintiffArguments of the defenseHolding of the courtRational in this case?2. Provide references. Please this is the third time that I’m submitting the same questions to tutors, Nobody providing enough details or explanations. I know that you can be busy or tired but please when we are asking question like that it means, we need your help. I already spent a lot of money for this questions. I appreciate everything you’re doing for us. thanks. Can you please give provide me more explanation ? Business Management Business Law BUSN 206

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades