Madenwald et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 23 Report and Recommendations,, 13 Motion to Dismiss, filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank, National Association, As Trustee For WAMU Mortgage Pass Through Certificate For WMALT Series 2007-OA3 Trust. Defendants Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [Doc. #13] is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/22/13. (cm, )

**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
MARK L. MADENWALD and
ALMEDA F. MADENWALD
Plaintiffs,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR
WAMU MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH
CERTIFICATE FOR WMALT SERIES
2007-OA3 TRUST
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 4:13cv136
(Judge Clark/Judge Mazzant)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this
matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. On July 24, 2013, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
[Doc. #13] be denied [Doc. #23]. Defendants filed objections on August 2, 2013 [Doc. #25]. On
August 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed a response [Doc. #27].
The court, having made a de novo review of the objections raised by defendants [Doc. #25],
is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the
objections are without merit as to the denial of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Therefore, the court hereby
adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this

1

court as to the denial of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the formal
sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ statement of their claim for relief, and cannot be used to resolve factual
issues or the merits of the case. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if plaintiffs have
not provided fair notice of their claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).
Generally, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are viewed with disfavor. Collins v.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000). It is within the power of a court
to require a party to produce evidence rather than lengthy, convoluted, and sometimes misleading
arguments, before deciding that judgment should be granted. And, in this case, if the facts are as
clear as defendants claim, a motion for summary judgment should accomplish the “just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination” of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P 1. However, the court does not agree
to the finding that discovery is necessary before proceeding to a motion for summary judgment.
That decision will depend on the facts presented and the issues raised in such a motion.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
[Doc. #13] is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22 day of August, 2013.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2