Martinez et al v. SN Servicing Corporation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RAQUEL VEGA
CERVANTES MARTINEZ,
et al,
Plaintiffs,
versus
SN SERVICING
CORPORATION, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-01270
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Raquel Vega Cervantes Martinez, Adam
Martinez, and Hugo Vega Cervantes filed this lawsuit,
seeking to prevent the foreclosure of property in Houston,
Texas. Dkt 1-3 (second amended petition). Defendants SN
Servicing Corporation and Family Benefit Life Insurance
Company later removed the case to this Court. Dkt 1
(notice of removal).
This action was referred to Magistrate Judge Yvonne
Ho pursuant to 28 USC §§636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Dkt 14.
Family Benefit Life eventually filed what it deemed a
“motion to withdraw the reference.” Dkt 70. The motion is
quite verbose. But in short, it (i) maintains that the action
was improperly referred in the first instance because it did
not consent to referral, (ii) accuses the Magistrate Judge
(who is disrespectfully referred to as “Magistrate”
throughout the motion) of exceeding her authority under
such reference, and (iii) asserts that there is good cause to
withdraw the reference under 28 USC §636(c)(4). Dkt 70.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01270 Document 104 Filed 03/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by
the Magistrate Judge, recommending that the motion be
denied because jurisdiction is proper without the parties’
consent under 28 USC §636(b)(1). Dkt 71. It further
explains that to the extent Family Benefit Life raised other
objections to prior rulings, it failed to object to those prior
orders and thus waived any arguments in that regard.
Family Benefit Life filed objections, essentially arguing
points put at issue in its motion. Dkt 72.
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).
Upon de novo review and determination, Family
Benefit’s objections entirely lack merit. As to the juris-
dictional arguments, party consent is unnecessary for
purposes of referral under 28 USC §§636(b)(1)(A) and (B).
As to argument that the Magistrate Judge exceeded her
delegated authority by denying its motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6), she did no such thing. The Magistrate Judge
merely, and quite reasonably, denied the motion “without
prejudice to being resubmitted as a motion addressing the
amended complaint,” after also granting Plaintiffs’ motion
for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt 53. The motion
to dismiss directed to the live complaint was mooted by the
filing of the amended complaint. Boelens v Redman Homes,
Inc, 758 F2d 504, 508 (5th Cir 1985). As to assertion that
there is “good cause” to withdraw the reference, nothing
presented approaches “good cause”—let alone “extra-
ordinary circumstances” as required by the appropriate
standard. See 28 USC §636(c)(4).
Case 4:25-cv-01270 Document 104 Filed 03/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
It is noted that the objections state, “The Motion to
Withdraw the Reference clearly states that the Magistrate
in this case has no authority to act in this case.” Dkt 72
at 2. For the avoidance of doubt, and so that Family Benefit
Life might choose, going forward, to comport itself with the
necessary dignity and respect owed in all federal court
litigation, the Magistrate Judge here has all authority that
has been lawfully delegated upon referral. The Magistrate
Judge also has the full confidence of the undersigned that
she approaches all legal matters before her in a temperate,
moderate, and reasonable way.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The objections by Defendant Family Benefit Life
Insurance Company to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 72.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 71.
The motion by Family Benefit Life to withdraw the
reference is DENIED. Dkt 70.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 27, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-01270 Document 104 Filed 03/27/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3