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
Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation has filed a motion for summary
judgment. See Dkt. 64. Intervenor Robert Duran has joined in PHH’s motion. See
Dkt. 65. Plaintiffs Jennifer and James Jeffries have not responded to the motion.
Having considered the summary judgment briefing, the record, and the applicable
law, I grant the motion.
BACKGROUND
On 	August 	4, 	2025, 	Plaintiffs 	filed 	an 	Original 	Verified 	Petition 	and
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary and Permanent
Injunction (the “Original Petition”) in the 412th Judicial District Court of Brazoria
County, Texas. See Dkt. 1-2. The Original Petition is the operative pleading in this
matter. In the Original Petition, Plaintiffs bring three causes of action: (1) Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) violations; (2) Texas Debt Collection
Act (“TDCA”) violations; and (3) negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs also
sought injunctive relief to halt an August 5, 2025 foreclosure sale. PHH timely
removed this case to federal court.
I held a status conference on December 12, 2025. See Dkt. 60. PHH’s counsel
indicated that he planned on filing a motion for summary judgment. See id.
Because the foreclosure sale referenced in the original lawsuit had already taken
place, I gave Plaintiffs a chance to amend their lawsuit before entertaining a
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:25-cv-00269 Document 66 Filed 02/10/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
motion for summary judgment. I set a December 19, 2025 deadline for Plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint. See id. When Plaintiffs asked for additional time to
file an amended complaint, I extended the deadline to December 23, 2025. See
Dkt. 62. For whatever reason, Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint.
This is the third lawsuit in which Plaintiffs have attempted to stop a
foreclosure sale of their home. The first lawsuit was dismissed by agreement. The
second lawsuit—styled Jennifer Jeffries v. BSI Financial Services, No. 125671-cv
in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas (the “2023 State
Court Lawsuit”)—resulted in an Agreed Final Judgment (the “Agreed Judgment”),
disposing of all claims for affirmative relief. See Dkt. 64-13.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when
there is evidence sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving
party.” Schnell v. State Farm Lloyds, 98 F.4th 150, 156 (5th Cir. 2024) (quotation
omitted).
ANALYSIS
PHH’s summary judgment motion advances one argument: Plaintiffs’
claims are barred by res judicata.
“Claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars the litigation of claims that either
have been litigated or should have been raised in an earlier suit.” Test Masters
Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005). The purpose of res
judicata is to prevent vexatious litigation, promote judicial economy, and give
finality to certain judgments. See Weaver v. Tex. Cap. Bank N.A., 660 F.3d 900,
908 (5th Cir. 2011).
On November 6, 2023, Jennifer Jeffries filed suit in the state district court
of Brazoria County to stop the foreclosure of her home. See Dkt. 64-7. Her petition
in that case set forth a laundry list of causes of action, including the same ones she
Case 3:25-cv-00269 Document 66 Filed 02/10/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
has raised in the instant matter: RESPA violations, TDCA violations, and negligent
misrepresentation. On March 25, 2024, the district court judge signed the Agreed
Judgment, decreed that “Plaintiff Jennifer Jeffries take nothing from her suit” and
that “[t]his judgment finally disposes of all claims by Plaintiff and is appealable.”
See Dkt. 64-13.
I am required to apply Texas res judicata law where, as here, the previous
judgment at issue “was rendered by a Texas state court.” Wainscott v. Dallas
County, 408 F. App’x 813, 815 (5th Cir. 2011). The elements of res judicata under
Texas law are “(1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction; (2) identity of parties or those in privity with them; and (3) a second
action based on the same claims as were raised or could have been raised in the
first action.” Harmon v. Dallas County, 927 F.3d 884, 890 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting
Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996)). All three elements
are met here.
First, the Agreed Judgment is a final judgment on the merits by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
Second, Plaintiffs and PHH are either identical to, or in privity with, the
named parties in the 2023 State Court Lawsuit. “For res judicata purposes, a party
is in privity when it is so connected with a party to the first judgment that the
parties share the same legal right that is the subject of the suit.” Nicholson v.
Barrett 	Daffin 	Frappier 	Turner 	& 	Engle 	LLP, 	No. 	4:24-cv-389, 	2024 	WL
3503274, at *4 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024); see also Amstadt, 919 S.W.2d at 653
(“Privity exists if the parties share an identity of interests in the basic legal right
that is the subject of litigation.”).
The plaintiff in the 2023 State Court Lawsuit was Jennifer Jeffries; the
Plaintiffs in this case are Jennifer Jeffries and her husband, James. As husband
and wife, Jennifer and James Jeffries are in privity. See Cuauhtli v. Chase Home
Fin. LLC, 308 F. App’x 772, 773 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that husband and wife are
in privity for res judicata purposes for claims arising from a mortgage loan);
Case 3:25-cv-00269 Document 66 Filed 02/10/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
Daneshjou v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1-23-cv-245, 2023 WL 8103953,
at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023) (same).
The defendant in the 2023 State Court Lawsuit was BSI Financial Services,
the Jeffries’ previous loan servicer. The defendant in this case is PHH, the Jeffries’
loan servicer at the time this lawsuit was filed. “Subsequent loan servicers share
the same interests as previous loan servicers, and are their privies for the purposes
of res judicata analysis.” Pignato v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 219CV00261, 2020
WL 7382307, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 17, 2020); see also Elwess v. Old Republic Nat’l
Title Ins. Co., No. CV12-1956, 2013 WL 526521, at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2013) (“As
subsequent loan servicer, Ocwen shares the same interest as [the previous loan
servicer] did in Plaintiff’s previous lawsuits against it. Ocwen and [the previous
loan servicer] are in privity.”).
Third, the present action is based on the same claims that were raised or
could have been raised in the 2023 State Court Lawsuit. In that lawsuit, Plaintiffs
sought to halt a foreclosure and challenged the same note and deed of trust that is
challenged here. See Millard v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., No. A-12-CA-1094,
2013 WL 12120415, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2013) (finding res judicata applied
where “[t]he same Note and Deed of Trust [were] at issue”).
This case is unquestionably barred by res judicata. PHH is entitled to
summary judgment in its favor.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I grant PHH’s motion for summary
judgment.
Duran has requested a judgment stating that (1) the August 5, 2025
foreclosure sale was valid; (2) Plaintiffs hold no right, title, or interest in the
property at issue in this case; and (3) Duran is the lawful owner of the subject
property. See Dkt. 55 at 2; Dkt. 65 at 4. Because I have already concluded that
these statements are true, see Dkt. 53 at 3 n.2, I will include such language in the
final judgment, which I will issue separately.
Case 3:25-cv-00269 Document 66 Filed 02/10/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
SIGNED this 	day of February 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00269 Document 66 Filed 02/10/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5