Jones et al v. Bank et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
____________________
MICHAEL J. JONES and
TAMERA A. JONES,
Plaintiffs,
v. No. 2:25-cv-00472-MLG-GJF
PIONEER BANK, ADRIANN RAGSDALE,
DEE ANN NUNEZ, and
DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOURATT’S
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
Pursuant to the Court’s Order of Referral, Doc. 30, Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Fouratt
filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) on January 16, 2026,
addressing several pending motions. Doc. 81. Judge Fouratt recommends (1) granting Plaintiffs’
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and Counterclaim (“Motion to Amend”),
Doc. 19; (2) granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Motion to Dismiss”), Doc. 39; (3) granting in part and denying in
part Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“Motion to Strike”),
Doc. 40; (4) denying Plaintiffs’ Second Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(“Second Motion for TRO”), Doc. 41; and (5) denying Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, Doc.
53. Doc. 81 at 1-2.
The PFRD notified the parties of their ability to file objections within fourteen days and
warned them that failure to timely file objections would waive appellate review. Id. at 24. This
Case 2:25-cv-00472-MLG-GJF Document 91 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
deadline included three additional days for filing objections for parties—like Plaintiffs—who
receive service by mail. Id. Defendants Pioneer Bank, Adriann Ragsdale, and Dee Ann Nunez
timely filed an objection to the PFRD on January 30, 2026. See Doc. 83. They argue that Judge
Fouratt “failed to consider the objective reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ repeated failures to abide by
the Rules of Civil Procedure” before recommending that the Motion for Sanctions, Doc. 53, be
denied. Doc. 83 at 1-2. Plaintiffs filed objections on February 3, 2026.1 See Doc. 84. Plaintiffs
challenge the PFRD’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Younger doctrine. Doc. 84
at 3. Plaintiffs also object to Judge Fouratt’s recommendation that their quiet title and declaratory
relief claims, as well as their claims regarding the FDCPA and unjust enrichment, be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 3-4. Neither side responded to the opposing parties’ objections to the
PFRD, and the deadline for doing so has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court reviewed de novo the record
and all parts of the PFRD to which the parties objected. Having thoroughly considered the PFRD
and the parties’ objections, the Court finds no reason either in law or fact to depart from Judge
Fouratt’s recommended disposition.
It is therefore ordered:
1. The parties’ objections are overruled.
2. The PFRD is adopted.
3. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, Doc. 53, is denied.
4. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend, Doc. 19, is granted.
1 “[A] party’s objections to [a PFRD] must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de
novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73
F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Plaintiffs’ failure to timely object to the PFRD waived de novo
review by this Court. See id. Nevertheless, the Court conducted a de novo review of Plaintiffs’
objections.
Case 2:25-cv-00472-MLG-GJF Document 91 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
5. Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for TRO, Doc. 41, is denied.
6. Defendants’ Motion to Strike, Doc. 40, is granted in part to the extent Plaintiffs’
Second Amended Complaint is stricken, and denied in part to the extent Defendants
seek an award of attorney’s fees.
7. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 39, is granted in part to the extent Defendants
seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for Quiet Title (Count I), Declaratory Judgment
(Count II), rescission under TILA (Count III, in part), violations of FDCPA (Count
V), and Unjust Enrichment (Count VII), and denied in part to the extent Defendants
seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for statutory damages under TILA (Count III,
in part), statutory damages under RESPA (Count IV), and as to Plaintiffs’ claims
for fraud and misrepresentation (Count VI).
8. Counts I, II, V, VII, and the portion of Count III seeking rescission under TILA are
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
9. The litigation hold precluding the filing of additional motions and staying briefing on
pending motions, Doc. 76, is lifted, with the admonition that filings that fail to comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, or other applicable rules, may result in the
imposition of sanctions.
It is so ordered.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTHEW L. GARCIA
Case 2:25-cv-00472-MLG-GJF Document 91 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 3