Younger Funding & Investments LLC et al v. BFSRF5 LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
YOUNGER FUNDING & 	§
INVESTMENTS LLC, et al., 	§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-2810-S-BW
§
BFSRF5 LLC, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs Younger Funding & Investments LLC (“YFI”) and Jerome
Younger, now proceeding in this action pro se, have failed to prosecute this lawsuit
and follow court orders. The undersigned United States magistrate judge
recommends that, unless Plaintiffs come into compliance during the 14-day period
within which they may file objections to this recommendation, the District Judge
should DISMISS this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Plaintiffs, then represented by counsel, filed this action in the Count Court at
Law No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas on October 6, 2025. (See Dkt. No. 1-1 at ECF p.
3; Dkt. No. 1-2.) Defendants removed the action to this Court on October 16 based
on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (See Dkt. No. 1 at 3.)
Defendants allege that Plaintiff Younger is a resident and citizen of Texas and that
1 United States District Judge Karen Gren Scholer referred this action to the
undersigned magistrate judge for case management pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Dkt.
No. 4.)
Case 3:25-cv-02810-S-BW Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

2
Plaintiff YFI is a limited liability company whose sole member, Younger, is a Texas
citizen and the LLC is therefore considered a Texas citizen as well. See SXSW,
L.L.C. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 83 F.3d 405, 407-08 (5th Cir. 2023). Each of the Defendants is
an Arizona limited liability company, each with different a different membership
structure that establishes Arizona citizenship. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 3-5.) Defendants
also properly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id. at 6-7.)
Defendants BFSRF5 LLC and Boomerang Capital Partners, LLC filed a
motion to dismiss on November 21, 2025. (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiffs subsequently
dismissed claims against Defendant Capital Fund I. (Dkt. No. 17, 25.)
Plaintiff’s counsel first sought to withdraw from the case on December 9,
2025. (Dkt. No. 15.) The undersigned denied counsel’s initial motion to withdraw
because Plaintiff YFI, as a legal entity, cannot appear in this action pro se, and there
was no indication that counsel had explained to Plaintiffs that counsel’s withdrawal
could result in the dismissal of claims brought by YFI. (Dkt. No. 22.) After ensuring
that Plaintiffs were aware of this, counsel re-urged the motion to withdraw and
demonstrated that Plaintiffs had consented to the withdrawal. (Dkt. No. 26.) The
undersigned granted the renewed motion. (Dkt. No. 27.)
In the order granting counsel’s withdrawal, the undersigned ordered Younger
to register as an Electronic Case Filing system user no later than January 8, 2026 and
ordered YFI to cause successor counsel to enter and appearance in the case no later
than January 9, 2026. (Dkt. No. 27 at 4; see also Dkt. No. 29.) Neither Plaintiff
complied with these orders within the time allowed.
Case 3:25-cv-02810-S-BW Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

3
On February 11, 2026, the undersigned explained that YFI cannot appear in
this action pro se and ordered YFI to either cause counsel to enter an appearance by
February 24 or show cause as to why its claims should not be dismissed. (Dkt. No.
30 at 2 (citing Guardian Garage Midwest LLC v. Polyguard Garage of Texas, LLC, No.
3:23-CV-1581-N-BK, 2025 WL 1886731, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 28, 2025), accepted,
2025 WL 1885650 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2025).) The order also required Younger to
file a response to the pending motion to dismiss by February 24, and it warned that
failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
(Id.) The deadline for Plaintiffs to take these actions has passed, and they have take
no action. In fact, they have taken no action in this case since counsel’s withdrawal.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) “authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua
sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or a
court order.” Smith v. Resurgent Capital Servs. LP, LLC, No. 3:24-CV-197-B-BN, 2024
WL 2278210, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2024) (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted). “This authority ‘flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket
and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.’” Id. at *2 (quoting
Boudin v. Graystone Inc. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985)); see also Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962).
By failing to comply with court orders requiring retention of counsel and a
response to the pending motion, Plaintiffs has apparently chosen to abandon this
case. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to take a basic and necessary steps to prosecute the
Case 3:25-cv-02810-S-BW Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

4
case, the Court finds that sanctions less than dismissal would be futile. This case
should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b).
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs may, within the 14-day period allowed for objections,
come into compliance and demonstrate an intent to prosecute his lawsuit by causing
counsel to appear in this case (as to YFI) and filing a response to Defendants’
November 21, 2025 motion to dismiss. If Plaintiffs fail to come into compliance
within the 14-day period during which they may make objections to this
recommendation, the undersigned recommends that this action be DISMISSED
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and
follow orders of the court.
SO RECOMMENDED on February 26, 2026.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02810-S-BW Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

5
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An
objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the
magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the
aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-02810-S-BW Document 31 Filed 02/26/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>