Woodard et al v. Flagstar Bank, FSB
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE - DENYING 7 Motion to Dismiss filed by Flagstar Bank, FSB, 11 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/13/2013. (baf, )
Woodard et al v. Flagstar Bank, FSB
Doc. 16
**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
REBECCA D. WOODARD and
JIMMY J. WOODARD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 4:13cv179
(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 June 26, 2013, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint [Doc. #7] be
denied. Defendant filed objections on July 9, 2013 [Doc. #13].
The court, having made a de novo review of the objections raised by defendant [Doc. #13],
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
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).
1
Dockets.Justia.com
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 defendant claims, 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 at this time before proceeding to a motion for summary
judgment. That decision would depend on the circumstances.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint [Doc. #7] is
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13 day of August, 2013.
___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?