Brannan v. U.S. Bank National Association et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 7 Motion for More Definite Statement.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(dperez, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
VS.
§
§
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, §
et al,
§
§
Defendants.
§

August 02, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

KIRK L BRANNAN,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-215

ORDER
Plaintiff, Kirk Brannan, pro se, filed this lawsuit in Brazoria County District Court
in June 2017. His pleading was entitled, “Plaintiffs’ Original Petition for Declaratory
Judgment, Unfair Debt Collection, Temporary Restraining Order, and Temporary
Injunction and Request for Disclosure.” Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants US Bank,
National Association, and Wells Fargo, N.A. It appears the heart of his case relates to the
alleged acceleration of the note on, and possible foreclosure upon, Plaintiff’s homestead,
located at 110 Cherrywood Dr., in Lake Jackson, Texas. In his Petition, Plaintiff alleges
that this homestead was part of a bankruptcy case, which closed on or about April 2013,
and that Defendants took several actions that violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, listing five specific ways that he alleged
Defendants violated that Act. Plaintiff also contends that these actions violated the
Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Defendants removed the lawsuit to this Court on July 6, 2017. In their Notice of
Removal, Defendants alleged that “Plaintiff [was] seeking a declaratory judgment action
1/2

that the Defendants had violated numerous provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act and had committed Unfair Debt Collection, and
seeking a temporary injunction barring Defendants form for closing on the property [at
issue.]” Dkt. 1.
Now, Defendants have filed a motion for more definite statement. Dkt. 7. In that
motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff should be required to re-plead under Rule
12(e).
Defendants have not, however, complied with this Court’s Procedures.

This

Court’s Procedures state that a pre-motion conference “must be requested before filing . .
. any motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.” As the Procedures explain, this requirement
is imposed in an effort to “advance the case efficiently and minimize the cost of litigation
to the parties.”
Because the Defendants have not complied with the Procedures, and in light of the
very early stages of this case, the Court finds it appropriate to DENY the motion, without
prejudice.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 2nd day of August, 2017.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge

2/2