Williams v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 130

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: The objections by Defendants are OVERRULED. Dkt 129. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 125. The motion for summary judgment by Defendants is DENIED. Dkt 102. The motion for summary judgment by Plaintiffs is GRANTED. Dkt 104.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(JennelleGonzalez, 4)

Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 130 Filed on 09/26/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
September 26, 2023
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
URSULA N. WILLIAMS, § CIVIL ACTION NO
et al,
§ 4:20-cv-01900
Plaintiffs,
§
§
§
vs.
§ JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
§
§
LAKEVIEW LOAN
§
SERVICING LLC and
§
LOANCARE,LLC,
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Williams initiated this class action lawsuit
against Defendants Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC and
LoanCare, LLC in May 2020, asserting that collection of
pay-to-pay fees by Defendants violates the Texas Debt
Collection Act (TDCA). Dkt 1. The matter was referred for
pretrial management to Magistrate Judge Christina A.
Bryan. Dkt 92.
Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by
Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan on the parties’ CrossMotions for Summary Judgment. Dkt 125. She
recommends denying the motion by Defendants and
granting the motion by Plaintiffs, thus resolving certain
issues as a matter of law and deferring resolution of other
issues for trial or other future proceedings.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other

Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 130 Filed on 09/26/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied 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, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Defendants purported to file twenty-four distinct
objections, cramming them into twenty-five pages that
largely reiterate their original arguments. Dkt 129. To the
contrary, Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires parties to file “specific written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”
By this standard, it isn’t enough to dump a multifarious
collection of issues on the district court with argument that
says, essentially, “Here, you figure it out.” But that, in the
main, is all that’s been done here.
Certain standards from the Fifth Circuit are clear in
this regard. For instance, the findings and conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge needn’t be reiterated on review. See
Keotting v Thompson, 995 F2d 37, 40 (5th Cir 1993).
Likewise, objections that are frivolous, conclusory, or
general in nature needn’t be considered. See Battle v
United States Parole Commission, 834 F2d 419, 421 (5th
Cir. 1987); United States v Ervin, 2015 WL 13375626, at *2
(WD Tex), quoting Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens
Neighborhood Association v County of Albany, 281
FSupp2d 436, 439 (NDNY 2003). And de novo review isn’t
invoked by simply re-urging arguments contained in the
underlying motion. Edmond v Collins, 8 F3d 290, 293 n7
(5th Cir 1993); see also Smith v Collins, 964 F2d 483, 485
(5th Cir 1992) (finding no error in failure to consider
objections because plaintiff “merely reurged the legal
arguments he raised in his original petition”); Williams v
Woodhull Medical & Mental Health Center, 891 F Supp 2d
301, 310–11 (EDNY 2012) (de novo review not warranted
for conclusory or general objections or which merely
reiterate original arguments).
Simply put, where the objecting party makes only
conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates its

2

Case 4:20-cv-01900 Document 130 Filed on 09/26/23 in TXSD Page 3 of 3

original arguments, review of the memorandum and
recommendation may permissibly be for clear error only.
That’s the situation here. Reasonable depth and
explanation were needed to properly present any one of
these issues, if de novo review was genuinely desired.
No clear error appears upon review and consideration
of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and
the applicable law.
Even though that’s all the review that was required,
the Court has nevertheless also examined the objections de
novo and finds that they lack merit for the reasons stated
by the Magistrate Judge.
The objections by Defendants are OVERRULED. Dkt 129.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 125.
The motion for summary judgment by Defendants is
DENIED. Dkt 102.
The motion for summary judgment by Plaintiffs is
GRANTED. Dkt 104.
For the avoidance of doubt, the ruling in favor of
Plaintiffs is without prejudice to consideration at the
damages stage of whether (1) certain Plaintiffs are
precluded from recovery due to loan modifications by
PHH/Ocwen, on their own or through a settlement class, to
expressly authorize the pay-to-pay fees; (2) certain
Plaintiffs are precluded from recovery because they did not
pay the pay-to-pay fee within the statute of limitations; and
(3) certain Plaintiffs are precluded from recovery because
they have filed bankruptcy.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on September 26, 2023, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Hon. Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge

3