Reagent Lonestar Group, LLC et al v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
REAGENT LONESTAR GROUP, LLC,
MARK DANIELS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, NEWREZ
LLC, LONESTAR CAPITAL
HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
5-24-CV-01094-FB-RBF
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
To the Honorable United States District Judge Fred Biery:
This Amended Report and Recommendation concerns the status of this case. Pretrial
matters are referred for resolution, pursuant to Rules CV-72 and 1 of Appendix C to the Local
Rules for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. See Dkt. No. 6.
Authority to enter this recommendation stems from 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons set
forth below, all claims asserted by or on behalf of Reagent Lonestar Group, LLC should be
DISMISSED, such that the only live, remaining claims in this case should be those asserted by
Mark Daniels in his individual capacity, to the extent he does in fact assert any such claims.
This Amended Report and Recommendation is entered so as to clarify that only the
claims asserted by or on behalf of Reagent Lonestar Group, LLC, should be dismissed, not the
case in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 25 at 1 (“For the reasons set forth below, the case should be
DISMISSED.”).
Case 5:24-cv-01094-FB Document 27 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 4

2
This action was originally a state-court lawsuit seeking an injunction and asserting
violations for breach of contract and failure of a condition precedent; trespass to try title to real
property; violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Regulation X of
the 2016 Amendments to that act; and violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act. See Dkt. No.
1-1 at 11-18. Defendants removed the case from the 57th District Bexar County Court, invoking
this Court’s federal question Jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 1. Prior to May 2025, before this Court
and in the state proceedings below, both Reagent Lonestar Group, LLC (“Reagent”), and Mark
Daniels were the named Plaintiffs in the action. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 1,1-1, 16. On May 22, 2025,
however, this Court entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw from this matter,
and the Order that did so also informed Plaintiffs that Reagent, as a corporate entity, could not
proceed in federal court without an attorney. See Dkt. No. 17 at 1. The Court therefore ordered
Reagent to secure counsel within 30 days of that Order’s entry on the docket. Id.
Then, on September 2, 2025, the Court gave Reagent a further 14 days to “SHOW
CAUSE whether it has obtained counsel in this case” and advised Reagent that “[f]ailure to
respond to the Court’s Order or to obtain counsel will result in Reagent Lonestar Group, LLC’s
dismissal from the case.” Dkt. No. 21 at 2. The Order also advised that Plaintiff Daniels may
“proceed pro se only insofar as he represents his own interests and not those of the distinct legal
entity Reagent Lonestar Group, LLC.” Id. at 1. Twenty-one days later, Reagent untimely
informed the Court that it had not yet obtained counsel, and that settlement negotiations were
underway. Dkt. No. 23. Now, two months after the parties’ last status update, no counsel has
appeared or requested to appear on behalf of Reagent. Reagent is therefore in violation of two
court orders, Dkt. Nos. 17 & 21, and it has also failed to timely and diligently prosecute this
case. Reagent was informed by a Court order on November 21, 2025, that its claims were subject
Case 5:24-cv-01094-FB Document 27 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 4

3
to immediate dismissal, Dkt. No. 24, and dismissal of its claims is now appropriate, particularly
given that the Court has endeavored to provide extensions and opportunities to comply with
Court orders, only to be ignored.
Conclusion
As such, it is recommended that all claims asserted by or on behalf of Reagent Lonestar
Group, LLC, should be DISMISSED, and that the only live claims in this case should be those
asserted by Mark Daniels in his individual capacity, to the extent he does in fact assert any such
claims.
Instructions for Service and Notice of Right to Object/Appeal
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this amended report and
recommendation on all parties by either (1) electronic transmittal to all parties represented by
attorneys registered as a “filing user” with the clerk of court, or (2) by mailing a copy by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to those not registered. Written objections to this
amended report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served
with a copy of same, unless this time period is modified by the district court. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections, responses, and replies must comply with the same
page limits as other filings, unless otherwise excused by the district court’s standing orders. See
Rule CV-7. The objecting party shall file the objections with the clerk of the court, and serve the
objections on all other parties. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings,
conclusions, or recommendations to which objections are being made and the basis for such
objections; the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusory, or general objections. A
party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendations contained in this amended report shall bar the party from a de novo
Case 5:24-cv-01094-FB Document 27 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 4

4
determination by the district court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Acuña v. Brown
& Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000). Additionally, failure to timely file written
objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this
amended report and recommendation shall bar the aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain
error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 2nd day of December, 2025.
RICHARD B. FARRER
Case 5:24-cv-01094-FB Document 27 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 4