U.S. Bank N.A. v. Lindsey

S.D. Texas

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Lindsey

DecidedFebruary 7, 2024

Docket4:22-cv-03499

StatusUnknown

This text of U.S. Bank N.A. v. Lindsey (U.S. Bank N.A. v. Lindsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Lindsey, (S.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED 7, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT oon ee SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS NO HOUSTON DIVISION

U.S. BANK N.A., § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-03499 § LEAL LINDSEY, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho’s Memorandum and Recommendation filed on January 5, 2024 (Doc. #40) and Defendant Diana Lindsey’s Objections (Doc. #41). The Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions are reviewed de novo. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order. Defendant Diana Lindsey (“Defendant”) objects to Judge Ho’s recommendation that her Motion to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 34, 35) be denied because the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit. Doc. #41. Specifically, Defendant argues that the “probate exception” to diversity jurisdiction applies in this case and that Judge Ho “misapplied the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction” in reaching her conclusion. Jd. at 3. However, the Court disagrees and finds that Judge Ho’s analysis as stated in the Memorandum and Recommendation comports with the law. See Cmty. Bank of Lafourche v. Lori Ann Vizier, Inc., 541 F. App’x 506, 510 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Sid-Mars Rest. & Lounge, Inc., 644 F.3d 270, 275 (Sth Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 34, 35) and Defendant’s Motion to Compel Release of Homeowner Insurance Funds (Doc. #26) are DENIED. It is so ORDERED.

FEB 07 2024 Date The Honorable Alfre#l H. nett United States District Judg

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED 7, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT oon ee SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS NO HOUSTON DIVISION

U.S. BANK N.A., § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-03499 § LEAL LINDSEY, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho’s Memorandum and Recommendation filed on January 5, 2024 (Doc. #40) and Defendant Diana Lindsey’s Objections (Doc. #41). The Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions are reviewed de novo. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order. Defendant Diana Lindsey (“Defendant”) objects to Judge Ho’s recommendation that her Motion to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 34, 35) be denied because the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit. Doc. #41. Specifically, Defendant argues that the “probate exception” to diversity jurisdiction applies in this case and that Judge Ho “misapplied the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction” in reaching her conclusion. Jd. at 3. However, the Court disagrees and finds that Judge Ho’s analysis as stated in the Memorandum and Recommendation comports with the law. See Cmty. Bank of Lafourche v. Lori Ann Vizier, Inc., 541 F. App’x 506, 510 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Sid-Mars Rest. & Lounge, Inc., 644 F.3d 270, 275 (Sth Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 34, 35) and Defendant’s Motion to Compel Release of Homeowner Insurance Funds (Doc. #26) are DENIED. It is so ORDERED.

FEB 07 2024 Date The Honorable Alfre#l H. nett United States District Judg

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Lindsey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-bank-na-v-lindsey-txsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack