Heussner et al v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:26-cv-00585 Document 34 Filed 05/07/26 in TXSD Pagelof3

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
May 07, 2026
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
FRANK MORLEY HEUSSNER, JR., ef = §
al, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00585

§
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE = §
CORPORATION, et al, §
§
Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Peter Bray’s Memorandum and
Recommendation filed on April 13, 2026 (Doc, #21) and pro se Plaintiffs’ Objections (Doc. #25).
Also before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motions to Stay Issuance and Enforcement of
Writ of Possession. Doc. #27; Doc. #30; Doc. #31; Doc. #32; Doc, #33. The Magistrate Judge’s
findings and conclusions ate reviewed de novo. FED. R. Civ. P, 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
United States y. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). Having reviewed the parties’
arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the Memorandum and
Recommendation as its Order.

This case arises from a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of property located at 7827 Wolfield
Lane, Houston, Texas 77071 (the “Property”)} conducted on August 5, 2025. Doc, #1, Ex. 4.
Plaintiffs challenge the foreclosure and seek to enjoin eviction by the purchaser. /d, In the
Memorandum and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge considered Plaintiffs’ Amended

Applications for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, as well as Plaintiffs’

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 4:26-cv-00585 Document 34 Filed 05/07/26 in TXSD Page 2of3

Emergency Motion to Stay State Court Proceedings. Doc. #21. The Magistrate Judge
recommends the Court deny those Motions. /d. In their Objections, Plaintiffs challenge the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that they have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits,
Doc. #25 at 2. Plaintiffs contend that misrepresentations surrounding the foreclosure and defects
in the sale process render the foreclosure invalid and justify injunctive relief. fd. at 2-3. Upon
review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiffs have not shown a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim that would entitle them to enjoin eviction
by the current possessor of the Property, See Doc, #21 at 3.

Next, Plaintiffs challenge the Magistrate Judge’s finding that they have not shown
irreparable harm. Doc. #25 at 3-4. Plaintiffs contend that eviction from their home, particularly
given their age and medical conditions, constitutes irreparable harm. /d. The Court recognizes
the seriousness of that harm. However, as discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiffs have not
shown that the alleged harm cannot be remedied through monetary or other relief in the ordinary
course of litigation. Doc. #21 at3-4. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that any defect in service or notice
should not defeat their request for injunctive relief, Doc, #25 at 5, Rule 65 provides that a “court
may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” Fep. R. Cry. P. 65(a)(1).
The record does not show that Plaintiffs have provided the required notice under Rule 65(a)(1).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ final objection is overruled.

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ later-filed Emergency Motions seek the same operative relief and fail
for the same reasons discussed in the Memorandum and Recommendation. See Doc. #27; Doc.
#30; Doc. #31; Doc. #32; Doc. #33. Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits
that would entitle them to a stay of related state-court proceedings, including enforcement of any

writ of possession. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have still not provided evidence that Defendant Phillip
2

Case 4:26-cv-00585 Document 34 Filed 05/07/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

Julian, the current possessor of the Property and the party they seek to enjoin from pursuing
eviction, has been served with this lawsuit or any motion for injunctive relief. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs have not clearly established an entitlement to injunctive relief.

in conclusion, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. #21) as its
Order. As such, Plaintiffs’ Amended Applications for a TRO and Temporary Injunction (Doc.
#10; Doc, #11) and Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Stay State Court Proceedings (Doc. #19) are
hereby DENIED. Finally, Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motions to Stay Issuance and Enforcement of
Writ of Possession (Doc, #27; Doc. #30; Doc. #31; Doc. #32; Doe. #33) are likewise DENIED.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have filed five emergency motions within the span
of one week, each seeking substantially similar relief. The Court cautions Plaintiffs that the
repeated filing of duplicative emergency motions is an improper use of judicial resources.
Plaintiffs are advised that requests for emergency relief must be supported by a proper legal and
factual basis. Absent materially changed circumstances, any further duplicative motions seeking
the same relief may be summarily denied.

It is so ORDERED, N |

MAY 07 2026 h/
Date The Honorabld Mifred H. Bennett
United States District Judge