Federal Home Loans Mortgage Corporation v. Harjarat Laditi, et al

Opinion

May 04, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

FEDERAL HOME LOANS § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER MORTGAGE § 4:26-cv-00933 CORPORATION, § Plaintiff, § § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § HARJARAT LADITI, et al, §

Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION AND OF REMAND TO STATE COURT Defendants Harjarat Laditi, Felix Amos, and/or all occupants of 26066 Haggard Nest Drive, Katy, Texas, proceed here pro se. They were sued by Plaintiff Federal Home Loans Mortgage Corporation for failure to vacate the subject property following a foreclosure sale. See Dkt 6-4 (petition for forcible detainer). Defendants removed the matter to federal court. See Dkt 1 (notice of removal). The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Ho. Dkt 4. Plaintiff moved to remand. Dkt 6. It argues that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking because Defendants rely solely on federal question jurisdiction in the notice of removal yet fail to identify any federal question. Id at 3–5; see also Dkt 1 at 3–5. The Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that the motion be granted. Dkt 7. She noted that Defendants didn’t respond to the motion and that this failure alone warranted remand. Id at 3. She further found that the notice of removal hadn’t presented proper grounds for removal. Id at 3-5. 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 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). No party filed objections. No clear error appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 7. The motion by Plaintiff Federal Home Loans Mortgage Corporation to remand is GRANTED. Dkt 6. This action is REMANDED to the County Court at Law Number 3 of Fort Bend County, Texas. SO ORDERED. Signed on _ May 04, 2026 | at Houston, Texas.

ad. Honorable Charles Eskridge United States District Judge