Adams v. Velocity Commercial Capital, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SARAN ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
V.
VELOCITY COMMERCIAL
CAPITAL, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§ 	Civil Action No. H-26-1636
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before the Court are the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(C) and/or Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) (Document No. 55), and Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint Out of Time (Document No. 58). Having considered the
motions, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that Plaintiffs
motion should be denied and that Defendant's motion should be granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This is a matter arising out of a mortgage dispute. Plaintiff Saran Adams owns
two pieces of property mortgaged through Defendant Velocity Commercial Capital,
LLC ("Defendant"). The properties are located at 6410 Paris Street, Houston, Texas
77021 ("Property One") and 7059 Reed Road, Houston, Texas 77087 ("Property
Two"). Plaintiff alleges that "Defendant engaged in the unauthorized securitization
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 12

of Plaintiffs mortgage" and that "the mortgage contract and foreclosure actions are
based on fraud, concealment of material terms, and violations of federal consumer
protection laws[.]" 1
Based on the foregoing, on May 9, 2025, Plaintiff brought suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, pursuant to federal
question jurisdiction, asserting claims against Defendant for: (1) violation of the
Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"); (2) violations 	of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"); (3) fraud under California Civil Code § 1572; (4)
conversion; and (5) declaratory judgment. 2 On October 10, 2025, the matter was
transferred to this Court. 3 On May 20, 2026, Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. 4 On May 21, 2026, Plaintiff responded in opposition. 5
On July 3, 2026, Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. 6 On July 6, 2026,
1 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 1.
2 See Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 2.
3 See Order Transferring Case, Document No. 24 at 1.
4 See Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l), Document No. 33 at 1.
5 See Plaintiff's Omnibus Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Document No. 42 at 1.
6 See Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(C)
and/or Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7), Document No. 55 at 1.
2
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 12

Plaintiff responded in opposition. 7 On that same day, Plaintiff moved for leave to
amend her Complaint. 8
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"The standard for dismissal under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for dismissal
for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)." Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503,
529 (5th Cir. 2004 ). Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails "to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a
pleading must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although "the pleading standard
Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' ... it demands more
than ... 'labels and conclusions."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell At!. 	Corp. v. 	Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555). 	In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, "[t]he 'court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff."' In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F .3d 191,
205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit,
1 See Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleading, Document No. 57 at 1.
8 See Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Out of Time,
Document No. 58 at 1.
3
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 12

369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004)). To survive the motion, a plaintiff must plead
"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570. "Conversely, 'when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could
not raise a claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should ... be exposed
at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the
court."' Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 558).
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
The Court will consider, in tum, Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend
followed by Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court construes
all prose filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
A. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (Document No. 58)
Plaintiff moves for leave to file an amended complaint. The Court notes that
this is Plaintiffs second request for leave to file an amended complaint. Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter
of course no later than 21 days after service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(l). In all other
cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent
or the court's leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
4
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 12

Here, the Court previously construed Plaintiffs response in opposition to
Defendant's present motion to dismiss as a motion for leave to amend. 9 Plaintiff now·
seeks leave to amend for the second time in this matter. On June 18, 2026, the Court
ordered, in response to Plaintiffs first request for leave, "that Plaintiffs Request for
Leave to Amend (Document No. 42) is GRANTED IN PART for the limited purpose
of asserting diversity jurisdiction." 10 The Court further ordered that Plaintiffs
amended complaint "be submitted NO LATER THAN SEVEN DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF THIS ORDER." 11 As such, Plaintiffs amended complaint was due on
June 25, 2026. Despite this, Plaintiff failed to file 	an amended complaint in
accordance with the Court's June 18, 2026, Order. Given the clear language of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court's
June 18, 2026, Order, the Court finds that Plaintiffs present motion for leave to
amend should be denied. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the operative
9 See Plaintiff's Omnibus Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Request for Jurisdictional Discovery, Request for
Leave to Amend, Notice Regarding Defendant's Disclosure of U.S. Bank Trustee Trusts,
and Notice of Non-Waiver Regarding Foreclosure Removal, Document No. 42 at 14
[hereinafter Plaintiff's Response] (Requesting that the Court "[a] ltematively, grant Plaintiff
leave to amend jurisdictional allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1653 and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2)[.]").
10 Order Granting in Part Plaintiff's Request for Leave to Amend, Document No.
51 at 2.
11 Order Granting in Part Plaintiff's Request for Leave to Amend, Document No.
51 at 2.
5
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 12

complaint in this matter is Plaintiffs Original Complaint. The Court will now
consider Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
B. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Document No. 55)
Defendant moves for "Judgment on the Pleadings, because even taking the
allegations of the original Complaint to be true, the Plaintiffs pleadings fail to state
a cause of action or any plausible claim for relief and should be dismissed." 12
Plaintiff offers limited rebuttal stating that: 1. "genuine fact issues exists[;]" 2. "the
forgery destroys the commercial exemption[;]" and 3. 	"diversity jurisdiction is
properly asserted[.]" 13 The Court will now consider the merits of Plaintiffs claims
beginning with Plaintiffs RESP A and TILA claims followed by Plaintiffs fraud
and conversion claims.
1. 	RESPA and TILA Claims
Defendant contends that the statute of limitations has run for Plaintiffs
RESP A and TILA claims. 14 Plaintiffs response offers limited rebuttal with respect
to Defendant's statute of limitations arguments contending that "[a]s a Native
12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(C) and/or
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7), Document No. 55 at 1-2.
13 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, Document No. 57 at 1.
14 Memorandum 	Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(c) and/or Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(7), Document No. 56 at 8-11.
6
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 12

American, the federal courts owe Plaintiff a distinct, historical obligation of trust
and protection over her property assets" and that "her name and signature were
placed on these contract instruments without her knowledge, consent, or legal
authorization." 15 The Court notes the applicable statutes of limitation for Plaintiffs
claims. 16 The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs Complaint in this matter and notes that
Plaintiff alleges that she "executed a mortgage contract on or about [Insert Original
Mortgage Date]." 17 Despite Plaintiffs failure to plead the dates of the applicable
mortgages, the Court has conducted its own review and notes that the mortgages
15 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, Document No. 57 at 1-2. In support of her contention, Plaintiff relies on
Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97 (1942), which states, in relevant
part that "this Court has recognized the distinctive obligation of trust incumbent upon the
Government in its dealings with these dependent and sometimes exploited people." The
Court notes that the Defendant in this matter is a private company, not the Government.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Seminole Nation is inapplicable here.
16 The applicable statute of limitations for RESPA claims is either three years or one
year and begins to run on either the date of the transaction or the date of the alleged
violation. See 15 U.S.C. § 2614. The applicable statute of limitations for TILA claims is
one year after the violation. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e).
17 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 2 (noting Plaintiffs failure to plead
when the original mortgage was entered).
7
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 12

were entered into on December 23, 2021 and April 18, 2022. 18 To the extent that
Plaintiff contends these mortgages were entered into without her knowledge, the
Court notes that the mortgages were publicly recorded on December 27, 2021, and
April 19, 2022. 19 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that, even assuming that
the statutes of limitations began to run on the later recording dates, and that the
longest three-year period is applicable, the statutes of limitations have already run
on Plaintiffs RESPA and TILA claims. As such, the Court finds that Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted with respect to Plaintiffs
RESPA and TILA claims. The Court will now consider Plaintiffs conversion claim.
2. 	Conversion Claim
With respect to Plaintiffs claim for conversion, Plaintiff contends, in relevant
part, that "Defendant exercised unauthorized dominion and control over Plaintiffs
property rights[.]" 20 Defendant contends, in relevant part, that "the conversion claim
18 Memorandum 	Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on 	the Pleadings,
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(c) and/or Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(7), Document No. 56, Exhibit A at 1 (Property Two Deed of Trust Assignment)
(noting 	that 	the 	mortgage 	was 	dated 	12/23/2021 	and 	recorded 	on 	12/27/2021);
Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. Rule 12(c) and/or Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7),
Document No. 56, Exhibit B at 1 (Property One Deed of Trust Assignment) (noting that
the mortgage was dated 4/18/2022 and recorded on 4/19/2022).
19 Property Two Deed a/Trust Assignment, supra note 17 at 1; Property One Deed
a/Trust Assignment, supra note 17 at 1.
20 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 2.
8
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 12

... is also barred by the two (2) year statute of limitations, because Plaintiff did not
file her Complaint until May 9, 2025, more than two (2) years after either date in
September of2022[.]" 21 Plaintiff offers no rebuttal as to this specific contention. The
Court notes the applicable statutes of limitations. 22 The Court has reviewed the
record in this matter and notes that both assignments, from which Plaintiffs
conversion claims arise, were recorded in September of 2022. The Court further
notes that Plaintiffs Complaint was filed on May 9, 2025. Based on the foregoing,
and the clear language of the applicable statute of limitations, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs conversion claim is time-barred, and thus, that Defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings should be granted with respect to this claim. The Court
will now consider the merits of Plaintiffs fraud claim.
3. 	Fraud Claim
The Court notes that Defendant does not specifically move for judgment on
the pleadings with respect to Plaintiffs fraud claim. However, the Court notes that
Defendant "incorporates by reference all of the arguments and authorities previously
21 Memorandum 	Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(c) and/or Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(7), Document No. 56 at 12.
22 The statute oflimitations for a conversion claim in Texas is two years. Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code§ 16.003.
9
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 12

stated[.]" 23 Defendant previously contended that Plaintiffs fraud claim should be
dismissed under a l 2(b)( 6) standard because "Plaintiff fail[ ed] to plead fraud with
particularity[.]" 24 "In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity
the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
Here, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs fraud claim should be dismissed
because 	"Plaintiff fails 	to 	allege 	the 	'time, 	place 	and 	contents 	of the 	false
representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation
and what [that person] obtained thereby[.] "' 25 Plaintiff offers limited rebuttal on this
point. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs Complaint and notes that Plaintiffs fraud
claim consists entirely of the following allegation: "Defendant knowingly withheld ·
material facts and engaged in false misrepresentations." 26 Furthermore, the extent of
the facts supporting such allegation are that "Defendant failed to disclose this
[referring to the transfer of the mortgage] material fact, constituting a TILA violation
23 Memorandum 	Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule J2(c) and/or Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. l 2{b)(7), Document No. 56 at 1.
24 Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, Pursuant to Rule J2(b)(5)
and Rule 12(b)(6), Document No. 52 at 16.
25 Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, Pursuant to Rule l 2{b)(5)
and Rule 12(b)(6), Document No. 52 at 17.
26 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 2.
10
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 12

and fraud." 27 Based on the foregoing, and the clear requirements of the Federal Rules
requiring fraud to be pleaded with specificity, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
conclusory allegations of fraud and minimal facts in support are insufficient to meet
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b ). As such, the Court finds
that Defendant's motion should be granted, 	and thus, 	Plaintiffs 	fraud 	claim
dismissed. 28
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Out
of Time (Document No. 58) is DENIED. The Court.further
ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 	12(C) and/or Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(7) (Document No. 55) is GRANTED.
27 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 2.
28 To the extent Plaintiff attempts to bring an independent cause of action for
declaratory judgment, the Court notes that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not create
an independent cause of action. See Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667,
671 (1950). In addition, considering the Court's findings relating to Defendant's motion
for judgment on the pleadings, the Court declines to consider Defendant's remaining
arguments related to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7). Furthermore, considering the Court's
finding that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted, the Court
declines to consider Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(J), Document No. 33, and finds that the motion should
be denied as moot.
11
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 12

ORDERS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l) (Document No. 33) is DENIED AS
MOOT. The Court further
ORDERS that all other pending motions in this matter are hereby DENIED
AS MOOT. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff Saran Adams's claims against Defendant Velocity
Commercial Capital, LLC, are hereby DISMISSED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this Ji!._ day of July, 2026.
~,l~a:
United States District Judge
12
Case 4:26-cv-01636 Document 62 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 12 of 12