Punch v. 21st Mortgage Corporation et al. Preclusion Order. No further filings will be accepted until the motion to dismiss is ruled on (see order #37).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
YOLANDA AQUNETTE
PUNCH,
Plaintiff,
versus
21ST MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-04399
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff Yolanda Punch proceeds here pro se. She sues
Defendant 21st Mortgage Corporation for violations of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. Dkt 18 at ¶¶10–13 (amended
complaint). She also brings claims for misrepresentation
and unfair lending practices. Id at ¶14.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim. Dkt 19. Plaintiff then filed motions to set aside
final judgment, for equitable relief, for leave to file third
amended complaint, to compel accounting, for judicial stay,
and for emergency interlocutory appeal. See Dkts 21, 27,
30, 31, 33, 34 & 39.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 11. She entered an
order staying all filings pending ruling on the motion to
dismiss and denying Plaintiff’s motions to compel and to
stay as moot. See Dkt 37 (denying Dkts 33 & 34). She then
entered a Report and Recommendation in which she
construed the motion for interlocutory appeal as a motion
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04399 Document 55 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
for certification of appeal under 28 USC §1292(b) and
recommended that the motion be denied. Dkt 43. She later
entered a second Report and Recommendation denying
Plaintiff’s remaining motions. See Dkt 52 at 18–29
(denying Dkts 21, 27, & 31). She also recommended
granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing this action
with prejudice. Id at 6–18.
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).
Plaintiff filed objections to the Reports and
Recommendations. See Dkts 44 & 53. They are scattershot
in the extreme, hard to understand, and in many respects
not responsive to the merits of the rulings by the
Magistrate Judge. Given that Plaintiff proceeds pro se,
they have been construed leniently in favor of discerning
potential legal arguments. But on de novo review and
determination, such objections lack merit, as detailed
below.
As to the first Report and Recommendation, Judge
Palermo recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion for
certification of an interlocutory appeal because Plaintiff
failed to appeal from a final order. See Dkt 43 at 3. Plaintiff
also failed to identify a substantial difference of opinion
about a controlling question of law. Ibid; see also Dkt 39.
Plaintiff’s only response to these flaws in her objections is
to dismiss them as “procedural technicalities.” See Dkt 44
at 3. She nowhere argues that she either seeks to appeal
from a final order or satisfies the requirements of 28 USC
§1292(b). These objections and others stated by Plaintiff
lack merit and will be overruled.
Case 4:24-cv-04399 Document 55 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
As to the second Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff
objects on the grounds that “the Court should first confirm
that it possesses subject-matter jurisdiction” before ruling
on the motion to dismiss. Dkt 53 at 4. She contends that
jurisdiction is lacking because the “true Plaintiff is YAPLT,
by and through its Trustee, not an individual in an
individual capacity.” Id at 3. She embeds a motion to
remand on these grounds within her objections. See id at
5–6. Such motion is likely precluded by prior order. See
Dkt 37. But arguments as to jurisdiction pertain to
Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R and will thus be
considered. Plaintiff identified herself as the correct
plaintiff in the live complaint, with no mention of her
proceeding in capacity as trustee. See Dkt 18 at ¶6
(identifying “Plaintiff Yolanda Aqunette Punch” as “lawful
owner of real property” secured by relevant mortgage). And
even if she were proceeding in such capacity, she hasn’t
indicated how this would destroy complete diversity.
Further, Plaintiff correctly stated in her own complaint
that federal question jurisdiction exists based on her
claims under the RESPA and FDCPA. Id at ¶3b.
Jurisdiction thus exists in federal court. These objections
and others stated by Plaintiff lack merit and will be
overruled.
The objections by Plaintiff Yolanda Punch to the
Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are
OVERRULED. Dkts 44 & 53.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Reports and Recommendations, the
record, and the applicable law.
The Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge are ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this
Court. Dkts 43 & 52.
The motion by Plaintiff Yolanda Punch for certification
of interlocutory appeal is DENIED. Dkt 39.
To the extent not precluded by prior order, the motion
by Plaintiff Yolanda Punch to remand is DENIED. Dkt 53.
Case 4:24-cv-04399 Document 55 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
The motion by Defendant 21st Mortgage Corporation
to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 19.
Any other pending motions or requests for relief are
DENIED AS MOOT.
A final judgment dismissing this action with prejudice
will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 11, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04399 Document 55 Filed 03/11/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4