Soniat v. Texas Real Estate Commission et al
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, for 13 Motion to Dismiss filed by Texas Real Estate Commission, 4 Motion to Dismiss filed by National Association of Realtors, Texas Association of Realtors , 14 Report and Recommendation. ORDERED that Defendants NAR and TAR's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #4) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims against Defendants NAR and TAR are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 5/12/2017. (kls, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION,
TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
§ Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-00166
§ (Judge Mazzant/Judge Johnson)
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF 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 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On April 21, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #14) was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Defendants National Association of Realtors (“NAR”)
and Texas Association of Realtors’ (“TAR’s”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #4) be granted. The
Magistrate Judge recommended pro se Plaintiff Shelley Soniat’s claims to be dismissed against
NAR and TAR because Plaintiff seeks an impermissible advisory opinion, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the case, and Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted against NAR and TAR.
Plaintiff’s only objection is that the Magistrate Judge entered the report two (2) days after
Defendant Texas Real Estate Commission (“TREC”) filed its Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #13).
Plaintiff complains that she was not given the opportunity to respond to TREC’s motion. However,
the report entered on April 21, 2017, does not concern the claims Plaintiff has against TREC.
Plaintiff still has an opportunity to respond to the arguments TREC has set forth. Because Plaintiff
has not specifically objected to any of the Magistrate Judge’s findings dismissing the case against
NAR and TAR, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, having considered each
of Plaintiff’s timely filed objections (Dkt. #22), and having conducted a de novo review, this Court
is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts
the Magistrate Judge’s report (Dkt. #14) as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants NAR and TAR’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #4)
is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants NAR and TAR are DISMISSED with
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 12th day of May, 2017.
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?