Reese v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

WENDELL REESE AND KAREN REESE, § PLAINTIFFS, § § V. § CASE NO. 3:25-CV-26-K-BK § WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. ET AL., § DEFENDANTS. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in this case. Objections were filed, and the Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are OVERRULED, and the Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Defendants Wells Fargo’s and U.S. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support, Doc. 11, is GRANTED, and Defendant Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Doc. 14, and Defendants Breckenridge Property Fund 2016 LLC’s and Bank of the West’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 15, is GRANTED IN PART. Accordingly, all of Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under a theory of res judicata. Further, Defendants Wells Fargo’s and U.S. Bank’s Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs, Doc. 21, and Defendants Breckenridge Property Fund 2016 LLC’s and Bank of the West’s request for a restraining order and vexatious litigation designation, Doc. 15 at 9-11, are DENIED AS MOOT. However, Plaintiffs are admonished that, if they persist in filing frivolous or duplicative actions, the Court may impose monetary sanctions. bar them from bringing any further action, or subject them to other sanctions the Court deems appropriate. See FED. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) & (c)(1) (providing for sanctions against pro se litigants or attorneys); Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195- 97 (Sth Cir. 1993) (holding that sanctions may be appropriate when, as here, pro se litigants have a history of submitting multiple frivolous claims); see also Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc., 332 F.3d 796, 802-03 (Sth Cir. 2003) (a violation of any provision of Rule 11(b) justifies sanctions). SO ORDERED. Signed August 25", 2025.

EDKINKEADE —————— UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE