Tindall v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC et al DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED.

U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT
SOUTHERN D ISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON D IVISION
TIMOTHY T INDALL,
Plaintiff,
versus
CROSS COUNTRY
M ORTGAGE , LLC, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:26-cv-00710
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
O RDER A DOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Timothy Tindall proceeds here pro se. He filed
this mortgage-related lawsuit in the 152nd District Court
of Harris County, Texas, asserting state law claims against
Defendants 	CrossCountry 	Mortgage, 	LLC, 	Nationstar
Mortgage, 	LLC, 	Marinosci 	Law 	Group, 	PC, 	and
Auction.com, LLC. Dkt 1-2 at 3–8 (original complaint).
Defendants removed this action on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction. Dkt 1 (notice of removal). The matter
was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y.
Ho. Dkt 6.
Judge Ho sua sponte ordered Defendants to show cause
as 	to 	subject-matter 	jurisdiction. 	Dkt 	25. 	Defendants
responded, maintaining that federal question jurisdiction
is proper under Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc v Darue
Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 US 308 (2005), because
Plaintiff “use[d] a variety of federal statutes to support his
position” in his complaint. Dkt 27 at 2.
Judge Ho recommends that the action be remanded for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the original
petition raised only state law claims, and Defendants failed
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00710 Document 30 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
to otherwise establish federal question jurisdiction under
Grable. Dkt 28.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a 	magistrate 	judge 	to 	which 	a 	party 	has 	specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
None of the parties filed objections. No clear error
otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the
applicable law.
The 	Memorandum 	and 	Recommendation 	of 	the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 28.
The motion by Defendants to dismiss is DENIED AS
MOOT for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt 5.
This case is REMANDED to the 152nd Judicial District
Court, Harris County, Texas.
The Clerk is ORDERED to provide a copy of this Order to
the Clerk of the 152nd Judicial District Court, Harris
County, Texas.
S O ORDERED .
Signed on June 12, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00710 Document 30 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2