Speakman v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
ANTHONY SPEAKMAN,
Plaintiff.
V.
SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE
SERVICING, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00039
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before me is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Brief in Support. Dkt. 7. Having reviewed the
motion, Plaintiff’s live pleading, and the applicable law, I grant the motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Anthony Speakman owns property located at 1435 Tiki Drive, Tiki
Island, Texas 77554 (the “Property”). In January 2026, Speakman, representing
himself, filed this lawsuit in state court, requesting a temporary restraining order
prohibiting Defendants from foreclosing on the Property. After the state court
entered a temporary restraining order, Defendants removed the case to federal
court. On February 18, 2026, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss,
arguing that Speakman failed to plead any viable cause of action to support
injunctive relief. Speakman did not respond to the motion. I held a status
conference on April 17, 2026, during which I extended the deadline for Speakman
to respond to the motion to dismiss or file an amended complaint to May 8, 2026.
That day came and went. Speakman did not file a response to the motion to dismiss
or an amended complaint.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party is entitled to
dismissal when the opposing party fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 13, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00039 Document 20 Filed 05/13/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). “A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up). “While legal conclusions can provide
the 	framework 	of 	a 	complaint, 	they 	must 	be 	supported 	by 	factual
allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, I must accept all well-pleaded facts as
true, “viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Alexander v.
AmeriPro Funding, Inc., 848 F.3d 698, 701 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted).
Legal conclusions, however, are not entitled to the same presumption of truth. See
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680. Although pro se plaintiffs are held “to a more lenient
standard than lawyers when analyzing complaints, . . . pro se plaintiffs must still
plead factual allegations that raise the right to relief above the speculative
level.” Chhim v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2016).
ANALYSIS
Speakman’s 	live 	pleading 	is 	less 	than 	a 	page 	long. 	The 	substantive
allegations are, in their entirety, as follows:
1. Plaintiff is the owner of the property located at 1435 Tiki Dr.
Galveston, TX 77554 (the “Property”).
2. Defendant intends to proceed with a foreclosure sale on February
3, 2026.
3. Plaintiff has attempted to resolve the default with Defendant,
including loan modifications requests and payment plans.
4. Foreclosure will cause irreparable harm, including the loss of
Plaintiff’s home and equity.
5. Plaintiff requests the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order
preventing Defendant from conducting the foreclosure sale until a
hearing can be held.
Case 3:26-cv-00039 Document 20 Filed 05/13/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
- Issue a Temporary Restraining Order stopping the foreclosure sale
scheduled for February 3, 2026;
- Set a hearing for a temporary injunction;
- Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dkt. 1-1 at 8.
Defendants have moved to dismiss Speakman’s lawsuit for failing to allege
any claims for relief. Defendants argue that Speakman cannot obtain injunctive
relief without an underlying cause of action. I concur.
“An injunction is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action.”
Morrison v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 4:18-cv-2873, 2019 WL 885701, at *3
(S.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2019). “To obtain injunctive relief under Texas or federal law,
[Speakman] must show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or a
probable right to relief; this standard necessarily requires a valid cause of action.”
Robledo v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, No. 1:26-cv-61, 2026 WL 1027549, at
*2 (W.D. Tex. Feb 26, 2026) (quotation omitted).
Speakman does not assert any claim for relief against Defendants. He simply
asks the court to stop the foreclosure sale. With no underlying claim for relief, “the
court must dismiss the request for injunctive relief.” Amezcua v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, No. 5:14-cv-1018, 2015 WL 671600, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 17,
2015); see also Denman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 5:13-cv-11, 2013 WL
1866580, at *2 (W.D. Tex. May 2, 2013) (Because “Plaintiffs have not asserted any
cause of action against Defendant[,] . . . Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief must
be dismissed.”); Barcenas v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. H-12-2466, 2013
WL 286250, *9 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2013) (“[A] prayer for injunctive relief, without
a cause of action supporting entry of a judgment must be dismissed.”); Olaoye v.
Wells Fargo Bank, NA, No. 4:11–cv–772, 2012 WL 1082307, at *5 n.5 (N.D. Tex.
Apr.2, 2012) (“Because Olaoye has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, he is not entitled to injunctive or declaratory relief.”). This case must be
dismissed.
Case 3:26-cv-00039 Document 20 Filed 05/13/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
I will issue a final judgment separately.
SIGNED this __ day of May 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00039 Document 20 Filed 05/13/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4