Parker v. Computershare Incorporated et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Theadra Parker,
Plaintiff,
v.
Computershare Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV 25-02221 PHX CDB
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE:
Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis, has consented to the exercise
of magistrate judge jurisdiction over this matter, which involves claims of employment
discrimination. (ECF No. 7). On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint naming
Computershare Inc., Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Newrez LLC, and Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing, as defendants. (ECF No. 1). On August 4, 2025, prior to any
defendant being served, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming
“Computershare/Specialized Loan Servicing,” “Newrez LLC/Shellpoint Mortgage
Servicing,” and various individuals, as defendants. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff did not serve
either the Complaint nor the Amended Complaint on any defendant.
Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on October 3, 2025.
(ECF No. 13). The defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint are
“Computershare Incorporated/Specialized Loan Servicing” and “Newrez LLC/Shellpoint
Mortgage.” (Id.). Counsel for Defendant “Newrez/Shellpoint Mortgage” (“Newrez”)
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
accepted service on October 6, 2025. (ECF No. 15). Newrez agreed to magistrate judge
jurisdiction over this matter. (ECF No. 22).
Service on Defendant “Computershare Incorporated/Specialized Loan Servicing”
was required no later than September 24, 2025.
In an order issued November 7, 2025, Plaintiff was allowed until November 17,
2025, to show cause why Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Computershare
Incorporated/Specialized Loan Servicing should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to
serve this defendant within the time specified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(ECF No. 24).
On November 14, 2025, Defendant Newrez answered the Second Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 25) and filed its corporate disclosure statement in compliance with
Rule 7.1(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating “Newrez LLC d/b/a
Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Newrez Holdings LLC.”
(ECF No. 26 at 4). Defendant further advised:
2. Newrez Holdings LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NRM
Acquisition LLC and NRM Acquisition II LLC, both of which are
Delaware limited liability companies.
3. Both NRM Acquisition LLC and NRM Acquisition II LLC are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of New Residential Mortgage LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company.
4. New Residential Mortgage LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Rithm Capital Corp. f/k/a New Residential Investment Corp. Rithm Capital
Corp. is a Delaware corporation.
5. Rithm Capital Corp. is publicly traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol RITM and was previously traded under
the ticker symbol NRZ.
(Id.).
On November 17, 2025, in a response to the Order to Show Cause at ECF No. 27,
Plaintiff asserts she has had difficulty serving Defendant Computershare/Specialized
Loan Servicing. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff avers:
1. Plaintiff was initially employed by Computershare’s Specialized Loan
Servicing (“SLS”) as a Customer Care Associate I from February 20, 2024
through May 1, 2024.
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Before accepting the employment offer, Plaintiff was informed that
Computershare intended to sell its U.S. mortgage-services business,
including SLS, to Newrez LLC, a member of the Rithm Capital
Corporation family of companies.
3. On October 2, 2023, Computershare Inc and Rithm Capital executed an
Asset Purchase Agreement involving Computershare Mortgage Services
Inc. and Specialized Loan Servicing LLC.
4. The transaction closed on May 1, 2024, at which time Computershare
Specialized Loan Servicing LLC and other assets merged operationally into
Newrez LLC.
5. Following this merger and transfer of assets, the SLS corporate structure,
departments, and personnel underwent transition, and publicly available
corporate contact information-including registered agent information
became unclear or outdated.
6. Plaintiff made a good-faith effort to identify the correct corporate entity
and registered agent for Computershare/Specialized Loan Servicing during
and after the transition period. Plaintiff reasonably believed that service on
Newrez LLC/Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing was servicing Computershare
Inc. If the new corporate structure did not encompass Computershare Inc.,
Plaintiff reasonably believed Newrez LLC would provide constructive
notice to Computershare Inc.
7. Because Computershare and SLS ceased independent operations and was
absorbed into Newrez LLC, with SLS now servicing loans under the name
of Newrez LLC’s loan servicing platform Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing
during Plaintiff’s employment period-and because new ownership assumed
all assets and operations–Plaintiff encountered material difficulty
determining the proper entity and address for service.
***
9. Plaintiff requests an extension of time for service pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) due to the corporate restructuring and
resulting uncertainty.
10. Plaintiff is prepared to immediately serve Computershare Inc. at its
located registered agents address to the extent the Court deems it a legally
distinct entity post-merger.
11. Dismissing Computershare/SLS at this stage would prejudice Plaintiff,
particularly because Plaintiff’s claims arise from actions taken while the
entity was still operating under Computershare, prior to the transfer to
Newrez.
(ECF No. 27).
In an order entered November 19, 2025, the Court ordered Defendant Newrez to
review Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause and file a notice taking a specific
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
legal position as to the corporate status or separate corporate status of Computershare
Incorporated and Specialized Loan Servicing, i.e., whether both or either of these entities
have been subsumed by Defendant Newrez such that any judgment against
Computershare Incorporated or any judgment against Specialized Loan Servicing would
be, in effect, a judgment against Newrez, or a parent or holding company of Newrez.
Defendant was also required to state whether effective service on Defendant Newrez, or
its parent company Rithm Capital Corporation, would constitute effective service on
Computershare Incorporated (“Computershare” and/or Specialized Loan Servicing. (ECF
No. 28)
In response to the order at ECF No. 28 Defendants aver:
(1) It is Defendant’s legal position that Computershare and Newrez
are and remain separate legal entities and are wholly unrelated.
Computershare has not been subsumed by Defendant Newrez, by merger or
otherwise, and remains a separate corporate entity unrelated to Defendant
Newrez. Any judgment against Computershare would not be a judgment
against Newrez, and nor would a judgment against Computershare be a
judgment against Newrez’s parent company, holding company, or other
companies affiliated with Newrez. Computershare is an independent,
separate entity and exists following the transaction merging SLS into
Newrez.
(2) It is Defendant’s legal position that SLS has been subsumed by
Newrez through a corporate acquisition effective April 30, 2024 (the
“Merger Date”). In other words, SLS was acquired and then merged into
Newrez on the Merger Date. Consequently, any judgment against SLS in
this case would technically and legally be a judgment against Newrez as its
successor. However, a judgment against Defendant Newrez would not be a
judgment against Newrez’s parent or related affiliated companies, as these
are separate legal entities.
(3) Defendant states that effective service on Defendant Newrez (or
affiliated company, including parent company Rithm Capital Corporation),
would not constitute effective service on Computershare.
(4) Defendant states that because Defendant Newrez subsumed SLS,
as defined above, on the Merger Date, effective service upon Defendant
Newrez would constitute effective service on SLS. However, SLS has been
fully merged into Newrez and does not otherwise exist as an independent
corporate entity following the Merger Date.
(5) Defendant further states that Plaintiff has asserted claims against
“Computershare/Specialized Loan Servicing”, which has caused confusion.
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
If Plaintiff intends to sue Computershare, Newrez takes the position that
Plaintiff must affirmatively serve Computershare, and that Newrez has not
accepted, and will not, and cannot accept service on behalf of
Computershare. More broadly, Newrez has not answered and cannot and
will not answer allegations in the Complaint (or otherwise) on behalf of
Computershare. To the contrary, SLS is no longer a separate and distinct
legal entity from Newrez. Consequently, as Newrez is the successor for
SLS, Newrez has effectively answered and assumed the responsibility of
answering for SLS, as SLS has been fully merged into Newrez on the
Merger Date and does not otherwise exist as an independent corporate
entity following the Merger Date.
(ECF No. 29 at 2-4)
Because, based on Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause and the notice
at ECF No. 29, Plaintiff appeared to be aware of the information necessary to effect
service on Computershare and Plaintiff sought additional time to effect service on
Computershare, in an order entered December 2, 2025, Plaintiff was allowed until
December 22, 2025, to effect service on Computershare. (ECF No. 30).
“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other
litigants,” including effecting service of process on each named defendant. King v.
Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). To date there is no indication in the docket in
this matter that Plaintiff has effected service of a summons and any complaint on
Computershare, or that Computershare has actual knowledge of these proceedings.
Plaintiff’s failure to serve Computershare is hindering further proceedings in this case
because the Magistrate Judge may not proceed with this case absent the consent of all of
the parties, and all of the other parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has failed to show cause for her failure to serve Computershare with a complaint
and a summons.
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that “Computershare Incorporated” be dismissed as a
defendant in this matter, and that all of Plaintiff’s claims as only against “Computershare
Incorporated” as stated in the operative Second Amended Complaint be dismissed
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/06/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to serve this defendant in compliance with Rule 4
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s order requiring service of a
summons and the Second Amended Complaint on Computershare Incorporated no later
than December 22, 2025.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment.
Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have
fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within
which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have
fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule
7.2(e)(3), Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed ten
(10) pages in length.
Dated this 6th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02221-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/06/26 Page 6 of 6