Jeffries et al v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
JENNIFER JEFFRIES, et al.,
Plaintiffs.
V.
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-00269
OPINION AND ORDER
There are three motions pending before me: (1) Intervenor Robert Duran’s
Emergency Motion to Set Aside Foreclosure Sale, Rescind Trustee’s Deed, and
Return Purchase Funds (Dkt. 11); (2) Plaintiff Jennifer Jeffries’s Motion to Enforce
Temporary Restraining Order and Unwind Foreclosure Sale (Dkt. 26); and
(3) Intervenor’s Motion for Interim Relief to Preserve Property and Prevent
Irreparable Harm Pending Ruling on Emergency Motion to Set Aside Foreclosure
Sale (Dkt. 45). All three motions are denied.
BACKGROUND
The facts relevant to the pending motions are relatively straightforward and
undisputed. On August 4, 2025, Jeffries filed a Verified Petition and Application
for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary and Permanent Injunction in the
412th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, seeking to halt the scheduled
August 5, 2025 foreclosure of her homestead by Defendant PHH Mortgage
Corporation. At 10:30 a.m. on August 4th, Jeffries’s attorney, Ryan Daniel, emailed
Selim Taherzadeh, the lawyer handling the foreclosure for PHH. In that email,
Daniel advised Taherzadeh that “the attached petition was just accepted into the
412th District court and we will be requesting a TRO hearing today.” Dkt. 27-12 at
1. When Daniel sent the August 4th email, Taherzadeh was out of the country on
vacation. As a result, Daniel immediately received an automatic “out of office”
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 25, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:25-cv-00269 Document 53 Filed 11/25/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
reply email from Taherzadeh. See Dkt. 27-13 at 10. The automatic reply stated: “I
am currently out of the office until August 9th with delayed access to emails. I will
respond to your email as soon as possible upon my return. If you need immediate
assistance, please call the office at 469-729-6900.” Dkt. 27-4 at 2. This auto-reply
email went to Daniel’s junk folder.
At 4:15 p.m. on August 4th, Jeffries obtained an ex parte temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) that prohibited PHH from moving forward with the
foreclosure sale. See Dkt. 1-5 at 2. On the morning of August 5th, Ryan sent a copy
of the TRO to Taherzadeh by email. At the time Ryan sent the email, Taherzadeh
was playing golf in Mexico. The foreclosure sale took place as scheduled at
approximately 12:15 p.m. on August 5, 2025. Robert Duran purchased the property
at foreclosure.
In a declaration, Taherzadeh says that he did not see Ryan’s August 5th
email or have knowledge of the TRO prior to the foreclosure sale. See Dkt. 50 at 1–
2. Taherzadeh insists that “[a]t no point on Tuesday, August 5, 2025 did I work,
review, or process emails.” Id. at 2. Taherzadeh maintains that the first time he
“had knowledge of the temporary restraining order was on Friday, August 8, 2025
at 12:38 PM, three days after the foreclosure sale, when [he] received a text
message from [a] co-worker” informing him of the TRO. Id. at 1.
PHH timely removed this lawsuit to federal court.
ANALYSIS
Jeffries and Duran ask me to set aside the foreclosure sale because it took
place in violation of the state court’s TRO. In response, PHH offers three reasons
why the TRO does not invalidate the foreclosure sale. First, PHH argues that it
never received actual notice of the TRO by personal service or otherwise prior to
the foreclosure sale. Second, PHH claims that the TRO is void because it fails to
comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Third, PHH contends that equity
requires the foreclosure sale to stand. I only need to address the second argument.
Case 3:25-cv-00269 Document 53 Filed 11/25/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provide certain requirements for TROs
that “are mandatory and must be strictly followed.” In re Luther, 620 S.W.3d 715,
722 (Tex. 2021) (quotation omitted). “Orders that fail to fulfill these requirements
are void.” In re Off. of Att’y Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695, 697 (Tex. 2008).
A trial court issuing a TRO ex parte to must state “why the order was granted
without notice.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 680. At oral argument, Jeffries’s counsel conceded
that the TRO in this case was obtained ex parte. The trial court, however, did not
explain why it granted the TRO without notice. See Dkt. 1-5. This is not a technical
defect. The Texas Supreme Court has held that a TRO granted ex parte is void if it
fails to state why it was granted without notice in violation of Rule 680. See In re
Off. of Att’y Gen., 257 S.W.3d at 697 (holding that TROs violate Rule 680 and are
void when they are “granted ex parte but fail to explain why they were granted
without notice”).
This is cut and dried.1 “Because the temporary restraining order did not meet
the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 680, it is void under Texas law.”
Hall v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 541 F. App’x 430, 432–33 (5th Cir. 2013).
“Accordingly, 	the 	temporary 	restraining 	order 	could 	not 	serve 	to 	void 	the
foreclosure sale or prevent transfer of the Property as [Jeffries and Duran]
assert[].” Id. I will not set aside the foreclosure sale.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	discussed 	above, 	Jeffries’s 	Motion 	to 	Enforce 	and
Intervenor’s Emergency Motion to Set Aside are denied. Because I have denied
Intervenor’s Emergency Motion to Set Aside, Duran’s request for interim relief
pending a ruling on that motion is denied as moot. 2
1 I explained to the parties at oral argument that I believed the TRO was void. I asked
Jeffries’s counsel to file a brief by November 13, 2025, if he disagreed with my assessment.
It speaks volumes that nothing has been submitted.
2 Duran has also filed a Notice of Clarification Regarding Clouded Title and Request for
Guidance on Ownership Responsibilities. Dkt. 52. I will not offer advice to Duran on what
he should or should not do as the owner of the property. That is not my role. I have held
that the TRO is void. The foreclosure sale was thus effective. Duran is the owner the
Case 3:25-cv-00269 Document 53 Filed 11/25/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
SIGNED this 	day of November 2025.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
property and should take those steps he believes are appropriate in connection with his
ownership responsibilities.
Case 3:25-cv-00269 Document 53 Filed 11/25/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4