Timothy Tindall v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC, et al

Opinion

June 12, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

TIMOTHY TINDALL, § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER Plaintiff, § 4:26-cv-00710 § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § CROSSCOUNTRY § MORTGAGE, LLC, et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Timothy Tindall proceeds here pro se. He filed this mortgage-related lawsuit in the 152nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, asserting state law claims against Defendants CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Marinosci Law Group, PC, and Auction.com, LLC. Dkt 1-2 at 3–8 (original complaint). Defendants removed this action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Dkt 1 (notice of removal). The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. Dkt 6. Judge Ho sua sponte ordered Defendants to show cause as to subject-matter jurisdiction. Dkt 25. Defendants responded, maintaining that federal question jurisdiction is proper under Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc v Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 US 308 (2005), because Plaintiff “use[d] a variety of federal statutes to support his position” in his complaint. Dkt 27 at 2. Judge Ho recommends that the action be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the original petition raised only state law claims, and Defendants failed to otherwise establish federal question jurisdiction under Grable. Dkt 28. 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). None of the parties filed objections. No clear error otherwise 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 28. The motion by Defendants to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt 5. This case is REMANDED to the 152nd Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. The Clerk is ORDERED to provide a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the 152nd Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. SO ORDERED. Signed on June 12, 2026, at Houston, Texas. CALL Charles on ge United States District Judge