Smith v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROBIN MARIE SMITH, §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-CV-3345
§
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, §
Defendant. §
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued Defendant for wrongful foreclosure and fraud.
ECF 1. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order to stop execution of a writ of possession at 2:00 p.m. on April 2, 2026.1 ECF 25.
I. TRO Standards
The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm
until the court makes a final decision on injunctive relief. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v.
Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423,
439 (1974). To obtain a TRO, an applicant must satisfy the following four elements:
(1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) substantial threat of irreparable
injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs any harm the order might cause to the
defendant; and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Enrique Bernat
F., S.A. v. Guadalajara, Inc., 210 F.3d 439, 442 (5th Cir. 2000).
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act, and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 13..
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03345 Document 27 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
II. Analysis
Plaintiff concedes that the state court foreclosure action proceeded after she filed
this case. ECF 25 at 2. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin execution
of the state court writ. See Preston-Caver v. Prestige Default Servs., LLC, No. 4:24-
CV-4850, 2025 WL 492498, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2025), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 4:24-CV-04850, 2025 WL 490487 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 13,
2025) (stating that “[f]ederal district courts have found ... that they generally lack
jurisdiction to grant relief where a plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order or
injunction to prevent the pursuit of eviction proceedings, or the execution of a writ of
possession” (citations omitted)); Seaforth v. Cornerstone Home Lending, Inc., No. SA-
25-CV-00144-XR, 2025 WL 2429053, at *2 (W.D. Tex. May 21, 2025) (holding that
the federal court had no jurisdiction over a state court forcible entry and detainer action
and could not enter plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief);
In addition, contrary to Plaintiff’s representations, the Court denied her request
for entry of default and Defendant has appeared in this action by filing a Motion to
Dismiss. ECF 14; ECF 17; ECF 18; ECF 24. Plaintiff did not file a timely response to
the Moton to Dismiss. See LOC. R. S.D. TEX. 7.3, 7.4. Having reviewed the Complaint
and the Motion to Dismiss, the Court concludes that Plaintiff cannot meet her burden
to show a likelihood of success on the merits of her claims. Plaintiff’s contentions that
Defendant wrongfully foreclosed because she was granted ownership of the property in
her divorce decree and that Defendant lacked authority to foreclose under the “split-the-
Case 4:25-cv-03345 Document 27 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
note” theory likely lack legal merit.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s
Motion for TRO (ECF 25) be DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of the memorandum and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other
grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on April 02, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-03345 Document 27 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3