Federal Home Loans Mortgage Corporation v. Laditi et alCase remanded to the County Court at Law Number 3 of Fort Bend County, Texas.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
FEDERAL HOME LOANS
MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
versus
HARJARAT LADITI, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:26-cv-00933
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
AND OF REMAND TO STATE COURT
Defendants Harjarat Laditi, Felix Amos, and/or all
occupants of 26066 Haggard Nest Drive, Katy, Texas,
proceed here pro se. They were sued by Plaintiff Federal
Home Loans Mortgage Corporation for failure to vacate the
subject property following a foreclosure sale. See Dkt 6-4
(petition for forcible detainer). Defendants removed the
matter to federal court. See Dkt 1 (notice of removal). The
matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge
Yvonne Ho. Dkt 4.
Plaintiff moved to remand. Dkt 6. It argues that
subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking because Defendants
rely solely on federal question jurisdiction in the notice of
removal yet fail to identify any federal question. Id at 3–5;
see also Dkt 1 at 3–5.
The Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that the motion be
granted. Dkt 7. She noted that Defendants didn’t respond
to the motion and that this failure alone warranted
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00933 Document 8 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
remand. Id at 3. She further found that the notice of
removal hadn’t presented proper grounds for removal. Id
at 3–5.
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).
No party filed objections. No clear error 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 7.
The motion by Plaintiff Federal Home Loans Mortgage
Corporation to remand is GRANTED. Dkt 6.
This action is REMANDED to the County Court at Law
Number 3 of Fort Bend County, Texas.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
May 04, 2026
Case 4:26-cv-00933 Document 8 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2