Hoskins et al v. Plaza Place Owners Association, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HLEVICTOR A. HOSKINS,
JR. and TRACEY R.
YOUNG,
Plaintiffs,
versus
PLAZA PLACE OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC, and
ASSOCIA PRINCIPAL
MANAGEMENT GROUP OF
HOUSTON,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-01107
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Hlevictor A. Hoskins, Jr., and Tracey R.
Young proceed here pro se. They sue Defendants Plaza
Place Owners Association, Inc, and Associa Principal
Management Group of Houston for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
Dkt 1 at ¶¶47–65, 76–81. They also bring claims for breach
of fiduciary duty and negligence. Id at ¶¶66–75.
Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of the claims by Hoskins, but not Young,
on grounds of res judicata. See Dkt 28 at 4–8. They state
that Hoskins previously sued Plaza Place in state court
“alleging the same, or substantially similar facts and
asserting causes of action for negligence, ADA violations,
HUD violations, and retaliation.” Id at 2. They further note
that the state court has already entered summary
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01107 Document 73 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
judgment in favor of Plaza Place in that matter. Ibid; see
also Dkt 64 at 22 (state court summary judgment).
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. Dkt 9. She entered a Memorandum
and Recommendation recommending that the motion be
granted and the claims by Hoskins be dismissed with
prejudice. Dkt 54 at 19–20.
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).
Hoskins filed objections. See Dkts 64 & 65. He largely
objects that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly applied the
doctrine of res judicata, while also appearing to challenge
the validity of the state court judgment itself. See Dkt 64
at 3–14. He also presents “newly discovered evidence” that
he claims indicates this action proceeds on a different
factual basis from the state action. See Dkt 65.
On de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly and correctly
determined that the state court entered a final
adjudication on the merits of the claims by Hoskins. That
judgment reflects that it was between Hoskins and Plaza
Place. See Dkt 64 at 22. The Magistrate Judge was also
correct in finding that the interests of Associa Principal
were adequately represented by Plaza Place in that action,
given its role as the management company for Plaza Place.
See Dkt 54 at 8–10. And she correctly determined that
these actions arose from the same nucleus of operative
facts involving a dispute related to accessible parking, a
service animal, property damage, safety issues, and
harassment and retaliation by Plaza Place. Id at 11. In
Case 4:25-cv-01107 Document 73 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
light of these legal conclusions, she also correctly ruled that
extension of time under Rule 56(d) would be futile. Id at
12–13.
One objection notes that this action includes a claim
under the FHA that wasn’t brought previously. See Dkt 64
at 8. But that claim arises out of the same factual basis as
the state lawsuit. See Dkt 1 at ¶¶9–21 (detailing basis for
FHA claim). Hoskins hasn’t otherwise shown why that
claim couldn’t have been brought previously. Purported
“newly discovered evidence” as to ongoing violations
doesn’t change this determination. See Dkt 65. And beyond
this, argument as to whether the state court judgment was
itself correct is beyond the purview of argument on res
judicata.
The objections by Plaintiff Hlevictor A. Hoskins, Jr., to
the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. Dkts 64 & 65.
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 54.
The motion by Defendants for summary judgment is
GRANTED. Dkt 28.
The claims by Plaintiff Hlevictor A. Hoskins, Jr., are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on May 14, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-01107 Document 73 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3