Kimberly Banfield Foreman v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 6:25-cv-00280
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00280 Kimberly Banfield Foreman, Plaintiff, V. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff filed this action seeking equitable relief concerning the securitization of her mortgage. Doc. 1. The case was referred toa magistrate judge. Defendant Bank of America then filed a mo- tion to dismiss. Doc. 6. The magistrate judge issued a report rec- ommending that defendant’s motion be granted and that the com- plaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Doc. 14 at 4. There- after, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court construes that motion as an objection to the report. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The report recom- mends dismissal because plaintiff does not identify a statutory ba- sis for seeking relief. Rather, plaintiff asserts an unrecognized en- titlement to relief in equity. As such, the complaint failed to allege facts showing that plaintiff has standing to challenge the securiti- zation of her mortgage. See Sigaran v. U.S. Bank Nat’! Ass’n, 560 F. App’x 410, 413 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the assign- ment of a mortgage where the plaintiffs did not allege that they were third-party beneficiaries).

-l-

The objections state that plaintiff seeks a voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) due to an alleged lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff now prefers to proceed in state court, but the objections do not allege facts show- ing that the parties are citizens of the same state or that the amount in controversy is deficient. In other words, plaintiff has not shown that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. As such, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not appropriate. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and being satisfied that it contains no error, the court accepts the re- port’s findings and recommendations. The court grants defend- ant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) and dismisses this action with prejudice. See Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 768 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (stating that where defending party establishes that plain- tiff has no cause of action, the defense generally inures to the ben- efit of a non-appearing co-defendant). Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on December 17, 2025.

jf (Lino BARKER United States District Judge

-2-