McCain-Townley et al v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: adopting 24 Memorandum and Recommendations, denying 8 MOTION to Remand. The motion to remand is denied. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4)

Case 4:20-cv-00379 Document 30 Filed on 01/07/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
January 07, 2021
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ERIN McCAIN-TOWNLEY § CIVIL ACTION NO.
and MARC A. TOWNLEY, § 4:20-cv-00379
Plaintiffs,
§
§
§
vs.
§ JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
§
§
HSBC BANK USA NA,
§
Defendant.
§
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This case involves claims by Plaintiffs Erin McCain-Townley
and Marc A. Townley for breach of contract and defamation. See
Dkt 1-1 at 11–12. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in Harris
County Justice of the Peace Court Precinct 5, Place 1. Id at 8.
Defendant HSBC Bank USA, NA removed. Dkt 1. Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on that same day in state court, adding
First Financial Asset Management, Inc as a defendant. See Dkt 8
at 6–14.
Plaintiffs proceed here pro se. They moved to remand. Dkt 8.
The case was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Sam
Sheldon. Dkt 20. He recommended that the motion to remand
be denied. Dkt 24.
Plaintiffs filed an objection. Dkt 25. They contend that the
Magistrate Judge erred in determining that First Financial wasn’t
required to consent to removal because it hadn’t yet been served.
Dkt 25 at 1–3. HSBC Bank filed a response. Dkt 29.
The district court conducts a de novo review of those
conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v Wilson, 864
F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989). To accept any other portions to
which there is no objection, the reviewing court need only satisfy

Case 4:20-cv-00379 Document 30 Filed on 01/07/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

itself that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See
Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1420
(5th Cir 1996); see also FRCP 72(b) Advisory Comm Note
(1983).
The Court has reviewed de novo the objection made by
Plaintiffs. The objection lacks merit. Disposition of the issue is
clearly controlled by authority cited in the Memorandum and
Recommendation. For example, see 28 USC §§ 1441(b),
1446(b)(2)(A); Tex Rule Civ Proc 106(a)(2); Hollister v Palmer
Independent School District, 958 SW2d 956, 959 (Tex App—Waco
1998, no pet). The Court has otherwise considered the
Memorandum and Recommendation and reviewed the pleadings,
the record, the applicable law, and the response. No clear error
appears.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court.
Dkt 24.
The motion to remand by Plaintiffs Erin McCain-Townley
and Marc A. Townley is DENIED. Dkt 8.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on January 7, 2021, at Houston, Texas.

Hon. Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge

2