Haynesworth v. USAA Federal Savings Bank

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
WILLIAM HAYNESWORTH,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00252
USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff William Haynesworth’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Dkt. 6). After careful consideration of the briefing, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court DENIES the Motion (Dkt. 6).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff William Haynesworth (“Haynesworth”) seeks a Temporary Restraining
Order (“TRO”) to enjoin Defendant from “initiating, continuing, or completing any
foreclosure or enforcement action related to the subject mortgage loan, pending resolution
of this action.” (Dkt. 6 at p. 1). Defendant is the “original lender and original servicer” of
Haynesworth’s mortgage loan. (Id. at p. 2). Haynesworth “sent formal notices of dispute
and demands for verification and validation,” to which Defendant did not respond. Id.
Haynesworth’s home is “now subject to pre-foreclosure activity by a new servicer, relying
on an alleged debt whose existence, balance, and enforceability remain unverified by the
original lender.” (Id. at pp. 2 – 3).
LEGAL STANDARD
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00252 Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and prevent
irreparable harm until the respective rights of the parties can be ascertained during a trial
on the merits. City of Dallas v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 847 F.3d 279, 285 (5th Cir. 2017). In
the 	Fifth 	Circuit, 	the 	following 	well-established 	framework 	generally 	governs 	the
determination of whether to grant a preliminary injunction:
To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the movant must satisfy each of
the following equitable factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury
to the movant outweighs the threatened harm to the party sought to be
enjoined; and (4) granting the injunctive relief will not disserve the public
interest. Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, it
should not be granted unless the movant has clearly carried the burden of
persuasion on all four requirements. Failure to sufficiently establish any one
of the four factors requires this Court to deny the movant’s request for a
preliminary injunction.
Id.
In presiding over a preliminary injunction hearing, a district court may “give even
inadmissible evidence some weight when it is thought advisable to do so in order to serve
the primary purpose of preventing irreparable harm before a trial can be held[.]” Federal
Savings & Loan Insurance Corp. v. Dixon, 835 F.2d 554, 558 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting 11
C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2949 at 471). In particular,
“[a]ffidavits and other hearsay materials are often received in preliminary injunction
proceedings. The dispositive question is not their classification as hearsay but whether,
weighing all the attendant factors, including the need for expedition, this type of evidence
was appropriate given the character and objectives of the injunctive proceeding.” Dixon,
Case 4:26-cv-00252 Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
835 F.2d at 558 (quoting Asseo v. Pan American Grain Co., Inc., 805 F.2d 23, 26 (1st Cir.
1986)).
ANALYSIS
Based on the evidence in the record, the Court concludes that Haynesworth has not
clearly carried the burden of persuasion on the four preliminary injunction factors. Among
other things, Haynesworth has not established a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits of his claims.
Haynesworth argues that “[u]nder basic principles of equity, contract law, and due
process, a party seeking to enforce an obligation must first establish its existence and
amount.” (Dkt. 6 at p. 4). He does not cite to any particular law to support this argument.
See id. Defendant’s “silence in the face of sworn presentment, followed by an affidavit of
non-response,” according to Haynesworth, “supports declaratory relief that the alleged debt
is 	unenforceable 	until 	verified, 	and 	potentially 	void 	for 	failure 	of 	disclosure 	and
accounting.” Id. This is the entirety of Haynesworth’s argument as to the merits of his
claim.
The Court finds that this argument is insufficient to establish a substantial likelihood
of success on the merits. Haynesworth’s arguments are conclusory and he fails to support
them with appropriate law. Accordingly, Haynesworth has not established a likelihood of
success on the merits of his claims sufficient to obtain a temporary restraining order.
CONCLUSION
Case 4:26-cv-00252 Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
Haynesworth’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 6) is respectfully
DENIED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on March 3, 2026.
Case 4:26-cv-00252 Document 18 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4