Jones et al v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DAVIONA JONES, et al., §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
v.. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-0644
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVING, INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION ON
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Application for Temporary Injunction.1 ECF 2. After reviewing the
pleadings and the applicable law, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order be DENIED without a hearing.
I. Background
Plaintiffs instituted this case by filing an Original Petition in state court on
January 21, 2026 to avoid foreclosure on residential property located at 6411
Elrington Heights Lane, Katy, Texas 77493. ECF 1-4. Plaintiffs allege that they have
submitted a “Qualified Written Request (QWR) and Notice of Error pursuant to 12
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act.
ECF 4.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00644 Document 5 Filed 01/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
U.S.C. § 2605(e) and 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024-35-36, requesting critical servicing and
ownership documentation,” but have not received an adequate response. Id.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “have continued foreclosure activity or threatened
foreclosure,” but they do not allege that Defendant has notified them of any intent
to foreclose or instituted any judicial foreclosure proceeding. See id.
Defendant filed an Answer on January 27, 2026 (ECF 1-5) and removed the
case to this federal court on the basis of diversity subject matter jurisdiction the same
day. At the time of removal, the state court had not ruled on Plaintiffs’ Emergency
Application for Temporary Restraining Order filed in that court. ECF 1-4 at 21-26.
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Application for Injunctive Relief filed in federal court on January 28,
2026. ECF 2.
II. Legal Standards
The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable
harm until the court makes a final decision on injunctive relief. Granny Goose
Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty.,
415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). To obtain a TRO, an applicant must satisfy the following
four elements: (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) substantial
threat of irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs any harm the order
might cause to the defendant; and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public
Case 4:26-cv-00644 Document 5 Filed 01/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
interest. Enrique Bernat F., S.A. v. Guadalajara, Inc., 210 F.3d 439, 442 (5th Cir.
2000). The decision of whether to grant or deny a TRO is within the Court's
discretion. Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 2017).
III. Analysis
Accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court finds Plaintiffs fail to
satisfy any element of a TRO as a matter of law without the necessity for a hearing.
See Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351, 360 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding a hearing is not
necessary if the party requesting injunctive relief “cannot show that factual disputes
exist regarding the required elements, and cannot introduce evidence sufficient to
justify granting the motion.”).
First, Plaintiffs have not established a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits because their Original Petition and their Emergency Motion fail to assert
sufficient facts to show that foreclosure is imminent. The Original Petition fails to
state a plausible claim for relief for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and quiet
title because there is no showing that there is any ripe dispute to be adjudicated in
this matter. Plaintiffs appear to seek an advisory opinion declaring that Defendant
has no right to foreclose, should they decide to do so in the future.
Second, Plaintiffs have not established a substantial threat of irreparable
injury because they have not alleged facts that show foreclosure is imminent or even
likely. Third, absent a pending foreclosure, the balance of harms and the public
Case 4:26-cv-00644 Document 5 Filed 01/29/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
interest factors weigh in favor of denying the TRO and letting the parties pursue their
contractual or other remedies without court interference. It is generally in the public
interest to protect a lender’s right to recourse on a defaulted debt.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
The Court finds based on its review of the record and the law, that Plaintiffs
have not met their burden to demonstrate the four elements necessary to obtain a
TRO. The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order (ECF 2) be DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of the memorandum and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on January 29, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:26-cv-00644 Document 5 Filed 01/29/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4