Kimberly Banfield Foreman v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 6:25-cv-00281
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00281 consolidated with No. 6:25-cv-00417 Kimberly Banfield Foreman, Plaintiff, v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff filed civil action no. 6:25-cv-00281 asserting state law claims concerning a retail installment contract with defendants. Complaint, Foreman v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA (Foreman I), No. 6:25- cv-00281 (E.D. Tex. July 29, 2025), Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed a second action asserting the same claims, civil action no. 6:25-cv-00417, in state court and defendants removed to this court. Notice of Re- moval, Foreman v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA (Foreman II), No. 6:25-cv- 00417 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2025), Doc. 1. The cases were referred to a magistrate judge. Due to the common issues of law and fact, the court consolidated the two cases on October 28, 2025. Fore- man I, Doc. 18; Foreman LI, Doc. 6. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that de- fendant’s motion to dismiss be granted and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Foreman I, Doc. 13 at 5. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and a motion to remand. Foreman I, Docs. 15, 20. The court construes those motions as written objections. 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). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Vettles ». Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th

-l-

Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass vy. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en- title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis- trate judge without a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff motions, construed as objections, fail to address the substantive findings in the report that she has not stated a viable claim. Instead, plaintiff asserts a lack of subject matter jurisdic- tion. Foreman I, Docs. 15 at 2, 20 at 2. The objections do not allege facts showing that the parties are citizens of the same state or that the amount in controversy is deficient. Thus, the court has diver- sity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To be sure, each com- plaint asserts diverse citizenship and amounts in controversy to- taling $10,500,000 and $12,500,000, respectively. Foreman I, Doc. 1 at 1-2, 4; Foreman IT, Doc. 1-3 at 4, 7-8. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and being satisfied that there is no error, the court overrules plaintiff’s objections and accepts the report’s findings and recommenda- tions. The court grants the motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) and dis- misses Foreman I, No. 6:25-cv-00281, with prejudice. “After con- solidation . . . a court may conclude that the second duplicative lawsuit should be dismissed. This Court so finds.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petrol. Corp., 1995 WL 17133045, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 22, 1995) (cleaned up) (citing Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 71 (3d Cir. 1977)). The court dismisses Fore- man IT, No. 6:25-cv-00417, with prejudice. Any pending motions in either action are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on November 18, 2025. flecked BARKER United States District Judge

-2-