McIntosh v. PHH Mortgage Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TERESA MCINTOSH, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civ. Action No. 3:25-CV-1385-K-BK
§
PHH MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
§
§
§
Defendant. 	§
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (the “FCR”) of the United
States Magistrate Judge was entered March 8, 2026 (Doc. No. 19). 	In the FCR, the
Magistrate 	Judge 	addressed 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Remand 	(Doc. 	No. 	8) 	and
Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) and recommended this Court
deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and grant Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss
and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. 	See generally Doc. No 19. 	Plaintiff
filed her Objection to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge (the “Objection”) (Doc. No. 21). Plaintiff objects to the FCR
solely on the basis that, because “[s]tanding is a jurisdictional issue,” dismissal of her
claims should be without prejudice, not with prejudice as the Magistrate Judge
recommends. 	Doc. No. 21 at 2. Defendant filed its Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Objection (the “Response”) (Doc. No. 24). 	Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an
Case 3:25-cv-01385-K-BK Document 26 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

unsolicited Reply to Defendant’s Response (the “Reply”) (Doc. No. 25).
The Court has reviewed the parties’ respective briefing, the FCR, the relevant
portions of the record, and the applicable law. 	The Court made a de novo review of
those 	portions 	of 	the 	FCR 	to 	which 	objections 	were 	made. 	See 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); FED . R. CIV. P. 72(b); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1222
(5th Cir. 1989). The Court reviewed the other portions of the FCR for plain error. See
Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221 (the district court appropriately “appl[ies] the ‘clearly
erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’ standard of review” only 	to those
portions of magistrate’s ruling for which there are no objections.).
The Court carefully considered the Objection, Response, Reply, the relevant
portions of the FCR, and the applicable law. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff
lacks contractual standing to bring these claims against Defendant and, therefore,
recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). 	Doc. No. 19 at 7-12. 	Concluding that “Plaintiff’s claims suffer from
deficiencies 	that 	are 	not 	curable 	by 	amendment,” 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	further
recommends this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. 	Id. at 12-13.
Contractual standing, which is a party’s contractual right to assert a claim, does not
involve any jurisdictional inquiry but is in fact “part of the inquiry into the merits of
[that] particular claim.” Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 11 F.4th 345,
350 (5th Cir. 2021); but see Denning v. Bond Pharmacy, Inc., 50 F.4th 445, 452 (5th Cir.
2022 (confirming that dismissal of a complaint “for lack of jurisdiction, including lack
Case 3:25-cv-01385-K-BK Document 26 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

of [Article III] standing, [] should be without prejudice.”) (internal quotation and
citation omitted). Despite Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion to the contrary, the case law
is crystal clear on this point—“[c]ontractual standing is distinct from Article III
standing and does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.” 	Maxim Crane, 11 F.4th
at 351. 	On this record, dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of contractual
standing is an adjudication on the merits of her claims made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
See id. 	Moreover, because any amendment would be futile, the Court concludes
dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice is appropriate. 	Having conducted a
de novo review, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection.
The Court further finds the Magistrate Judge’s FCR is otherwise correct.
Accordingly, the Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of
the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 19). Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc.
No. 8) is DENIED and Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Signed March 30 th, 2026.
_____________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01385-K-BK Document 26 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>