Foreman v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC

- 1 -
No. 6:25-cv-00281
consolidated with No. 6:25-cv-00417
Kimberly Banfield Foreman,
Plaintiff,
v.
BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
O R D E R
Plaintiff filed civil action no. 6:25-cv-00281 asserting state law
claims concerning a retail installment contract with defendants.
Complaint, Foreman v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA (Foreman I), No. 6:25-
cv-00281 (E.D. Tex. July 29, 2025), Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed a second
action asserting the same claims, civil action no. 6:25-cv-00417, in
state court and defendants removed to this court. Notice of Re-
moval, Foreman v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA (Foreman II), No. 6:25-cv-
00417 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2025), Doc. 1. The cases were referred
to a magistrate judge. Due to the common issues of law and fact,
the court consolidated the two cases on October 28, 2025. Fore-
man I, Doc. 18; Foreman II, Doc. 6.
The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that de-
fendant’s motion to dismiss be granted and that the complaint be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Foreman I,
Doc. 13 at 5. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and a motion to remand. Foreman I, Docs. 15,
20. The court construes those motions as written objections.
The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “Parties filing objections
must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the
district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th
Case 6:25-cv-00281-JCB-KNM Document 31 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass
v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en-
title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis-
trate judge without a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28
F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff’s motions, construed as objections, fail to address the
substantive findings in the report that she has not stated a viable
claim. Instead, plaintiff asserts a lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion. Foreman I, Docs. 15 at 2, 20 at 2. The objections do not allege
facts showing that the parties are citizens of the same state or that
the amount in controversy is deficient. Thus, the court has diver-
sity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To be sure, each com-
plaint asserts diverse citizenship and amounts in controversy to-
taling $10,500,000 and $12,500,000, respectively. Foreman I,
Doc. 1 at 1–2, 4; Foreman II, Doc. 1-3 at 4, 7–8.
Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and
being satisfied that there is no error, the court overrules plaintiff’s
objections and accepts the report’s findings and recommenda-
tions. The court grants the motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) and dis-
misses Foreman I, No. 6:25-cv-00281, with prejudice. “After con-
solidation . . . a court may conclude that the second duplicative
lawsuit should be dismissed. This Court so finds.” Friends of the
Earth, Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petrol. Corp., 1995 WL 17133045, at *4
(E.D. Tex. Sep. 22, 1995) (cleaned up) (citing Walton v. Eaton
Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 71 (3d Cir. 1977)). The court dismisses Fore-
man II, No. 6:25-cv-00417, with prejudice. Any pending motions
in either action are denied as moot.
So ordered by the court on November 18, 2025.
J. CAM PB EL L BA RK ER
United States District Judge
Case 6:25-cv-00281-JCB-KNM Document 31 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>