Brown v. The Bank of New York Mellon

S.D. Texas

Brown v. The Bank of New York Mellon

DecidedJanuary 10, 2020

Docket4:19-cv-00946

StatusUnknown

This text of Brown v. The Bank of New York Mellon (Brown v. The Bank of New York Mellon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. The Bank of New York Mellon, (S.D. Tex. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION HELEN D. BROWN, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION H-19-946 § THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON § F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS § TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS § OF CWABS INC., ASSET-BACKED § CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-BC1, AND § BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, § § Defendants. § ORDER Pending before the court is the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 21. Although defendants served plaintiff via certified mail return receipt requested (see Dkt. 21 at 13), more than a week has passed since the response deadline and Plaintiff has not responded. Having reviewed the motion, the evidentiary record, and the applicable law, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary judgment. According to the local rules, a failure to timely respond to a pending motion “will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4. Nevertheless, a “motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there is no opposition, even if failure to oppose violated a local rule.” Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Admin. Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1985)). Defendants still have “the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and, unless [they] ha[ve] done so, the court may not grant the motion, regardless of whether any response was filed.” See Hetzel, 50 F.3d at 362 n.3. However, a district court may accept as undisputed the facts set forth in the motion. See Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (Sth Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted). The court has examined the record and applicable law and is satisfied that, for the reasons set forth in defendants’ motion for summary judgment, no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106S.Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (Sth Cir. 1994) (en banc). Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED. Signed at Houston, Texas on January 10, 2020.

(ay BAM . Senior United Stat$s District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION HELEN D. BROWN, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION H-19-946 § THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON § F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS § TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS § OF CWABS INC., ASSET-BACKED § CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-BC1, AND § BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, § § Defendants. § ORDER Pending before the court is the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 21. Although defendants served plaintiff via certified mail return receipt requested (see Dkt. 21 at 13), more than a week has passed since the response deadline and Plaintiff has not responded. Having reviewed the motion, the evidentiary record, and the applicable law, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary judgment. According to the local rules, a failure to timely respond to a pending motion “will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4. Nevertheless, a “motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there is no opposition, even if failure to oppose violated a local rule.” Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Admin. Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1985)). Defendants still have “the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and, unless [they] ha[ve] done so, the court may not grant the motion, regardless of whether any response was filed.” See Hetzel, 50 F.3d at 362 n.3. However, a district court may accept as undisputed the facts set forth in the motion. See Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (Sth Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted). The court has examined the record and applicable law and is satisfied that, for the reasons set forth in defendants’ motion for summary judgment, no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106S.Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (Sth Cir. 1994) (en banc). Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED. Signed at Houston, Texas on January 10, 2020.

(ay BAM . Senior United Stat$s District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brown v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-the-bank-of-new-york-mellon-txsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack