Omoloh et al v. Bank of America, N.A.

Filing 32

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONOF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: It is ORDERED that Plaintiff Wilfred Omoloh's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction (ECF No. 11 ) is DENIED, Asem Z. Eltiar's Mot ion for Withdrawal as Counsel (ECF No. 18 ) is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 16 ) is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Wilfred Omoloh and Kathleen Omoloh execute the settlement agreement and return it to counsel for Defendant no later than seven (7) days after the date of this Order. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 6/15/2017) (skg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION

WILFRED OMOLOH and
KATHLEEN OMOLOH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-00160-O-BP

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge has issued Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation (“FCR”) in this matter (ECF No. 21).

The Magistrate Judge

recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Wilfred Omoloh’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction (ECF No. 11), filed April 12, 2017; grant Asem
Z. Eltiar’s Motion for Withdrawal as Counsel (ECF No. 18), filed April 28, 2017; and grant
Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No.
16), filed April 24, 2017.
After the Magistrate issued his FCR, Plaintiff filed an Amended Application for ExParte Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction (ECF No. 22), filed May
18, 2017. The ex-parte motion is duplicative of Plaintiff’s previously filed injunction
motion and Plaintiff offered no justification for filing the new application ex-parte.
Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Amended Application for Ex-Parte

Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction (ECF No. 22) and only considers
Plaintiff’s earlier Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction here.
On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Motion Opposing Defendant’s Motion
to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 24). The Court construes this motion as
objections to the FCR. Plaintiff’s sole objection relevant to the FCR is an allegation that
Plaintiff was tricked or misled into signing the settlement agreement, which Defendant
seeks to enforce, by his attorney, Asem Eltiar, who now seeks to withdraw. Pl.’s Mot.
Opposing Mot. Enforce Settlement 5, ECF No. 24. The Court ordered expedited briefing
on Plaintiff’s allegations and briefing is now complete. See May 31, 2017 Order, ECF No.
25; see also ECF Nos. 27–31.
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and the subsequent briefing, the Court finds
that there is no support for Plaintiff’s contention that he was tricked or misled into the
settlement agreement by any misconduct on the part of his attorney. In fact, Plaintiff’s own
exhibits demonstrate that he understood the terms of the settlement agreement, entered into
it willingly, and sought to fulfill the terms of the agreement. See Pl.’s Mot. Opposing Mot.
Enforce Settlement App., Ex. B, ECF No. 24.
Therefore, after reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the
FCR and Plaintiff’s objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court
is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 21)
are correct and they are ACCEPTED as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Wilfred Omoloh’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction (ECF No. 11) is DENIED, Asem Z. Eltiar’s
2

Motion for Withdrawal as Counsel (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED, and Defendant’s Motion
to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that
Plaintiffs Wilfred Omoloh and Kathleen Omoloh execute the settlement agreement and
return it to counsel for Defendant no later than seven (7) days after the date of this Order.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
SO ORDERED on this 15th day of June, 2017.

_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3