Estate of Betty Earl Moore v. Wells Fargo NA

Order – Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ESTATE OF BETTY EARL MOORE, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-1789-L-BW
§
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
ORDER
On December 8, 2025, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 13) was entered, recommending that the court grant
Defendant Wells Fargo, N.A.’s Rule 12(c) Dismissal Motion (“Motion”) (Doc. 4), filed September
5, 2025. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing with prejudice this action because any
claims by Plaintiff under Texas law that are premised on wrongful foreclosure fail as a matter of
law in light of Plaintiff’s admission that no foreclosure has occurred yet.
Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, filed a response to the Motion but did not seek to
file an Amended Complaint; nor did it file objections to the Report, and the deadline for doing so
has expired. 	According to the Report, Plaintiff accepts that dismissal of this action may be
appropriate but assures the court that the lawsuit was brought in good faith and not for the purpose
of delay, and it requests that dismissal be without prejudice. To this, the magistrate judge reasoned
that Plaintiff’s request is:
seemingly based on a mistaken belief that dismissal with prejudice would
“effectively” preclude it from pursuing legal action against Wells Fargo based on
claims of wrongful foreclosure or other causes of action that might accrue in the
future. . . . The Estate, however, brought a claim against Wells Fargo f[or] wrongful
foreclosure based on allegations of a past foreclosure that did not occur [yet]. As
explained above, the Estate’s claim fails as a matter of law, and amendment would
Case 3:25-cv-01789-L-BW Document 14 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Order – Page 2
be futile here, as the Estate cannot cure through amendment its inability to allege
that foreclosure had occurred. Dismissal with prejudice is therefore appropriate.
Report 6 (citation omitted).
Considering this reasoning by the magistrate judge, the arguments urged by Defendant,
and the concession by Plaintiff, the court determines that any claims or requests for relief by
Plaintiff that are premised on wrongful foreclosure or foreclosure proceedings that have yet to take
place are premature or not ripe. Ripeness goes to the court’s jurisdiction to hear a case. Under
Article 	III 	of 	the 	Constitution, 	federal 	courts 	are 	confined 	to 	adjudicating 	“cases” 	and
“controversies.” Choice Inc. of Tex. v. Greenstein, 691 F.3d 710, 714-15 (5th Cir. 2012). To satisfy
the case or controversy requirement for Article III jurisdictional purposes, the litigation “must be
ripe for decision, meaning that it must not be premature or speculative.” Shields v. Norton, 289
F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 2002). 	In other words, “ripeness is a constitutional prerequisite to the
exercise of jurisdiction.” Shields, 289 F.3d at 835. As explained by the Fifth Circuit:
A court should dismiss a case for lack of “ripeness” when the case is abstract or
hypothetical. The key considerations are “the fitness of the issues for judicial
decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” A case
is generally ripe if any remaining questions are purely legal ones; conversely, a case
is not ripe if further factual development is required.
New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 833 F.2d 583, 586-87 (5th Cir. 1987)
(internal citations omitted). A federal court has an independent duty, at any level of the
proceedings, to determine whether it properly has subject matter jurisdiction over a case, Ruhgras
AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999), and it may raise the issue sua sponte. McDonal
v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177, 182 n.5 (5th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff’s claims here are not yet ripe because certain events have yet to occur and require
further factual development. 	The court, therefore, agrees with Plaintiff that this action and the
claims asserted by it in this action should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of ripeness in
Case 3:25-cv-01789-L-BW Document 14 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Order – Page 3
light of Plaintiff’s acknowledgement that no foreclosure, wrongful or otherwise, has occurred yet.
See Sureshot Golf Ventures, Inc. v. Topgolf Int’l, Inc., 754 F. App’x 235, 239 (5th Cir. 2018)
(affirming judgment as modified to reflect dismissal without prejudice of unripe claims).
Having considered the Motion, briefs, pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the
court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct as
supplemented and modified, and the court accepts them as supplemented and modified. The
court, therefore, grants Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 4), but, for the reasons explained, it construes
Defendant’s Motion as a request to dismiss this action on ripeness grounds and dismisses without
prejudice this action and all claims asserted by Plaintiff for lack of Article III jurisdiction.
It is so ordered this 12th day of February, 2026.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01789-L-BW Document 14 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>