govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-4_26-cv-00710-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
HOUSTON DIVISION 
 
TIMOTHY TINDALL, 
  Plaintiff, 
 
 
 versus 
 
 
C
ROSSCOUNTRY 
MORTGAGE, LLC, et al, 
  Defendants. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
§ 
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 
4:26-cv-00710 
 
 
J
UDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE 
 
ORDER ADOPTING  
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION  
Plaintiff Timothy Tindall proceeds here pro se. He filed 
this mortgage-related lawsuit in the 152nd District Court 
of Harris County, Texas, asserting state law claims against 
Defendants CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC, Nationstar 
Mortgage, LLC, Marinosci Law Group, PC, and 
Auction.com, LLC . Dkt 1 -2 at 3 –8 (original complaint). 
Defendants removed this action on the basis of federal 
question jurisdiction. Dkt 1 (notice of removal). The matter 
was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. 
Ho. Dkt 6. 
Judge Ho sua sponte ordered Defendants to show cause 
as to  subject-matter jurisdiction. Dkt 25. Defendants 
responded, maintaining that federal question jurisdiction 
is proper under Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc v Darue 
Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 US 308 (2005), because 
Plaintiff “use[d] a variety of federal statutes to support his 
position” in his complaint. Dkt 27 at 2. 
Judge Ho recommends that the action be remanded for 
lack of subject -matter jurisdiction because the original 
petition raised only state law claims, and Defendants failed 
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00710     Document 30     Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD     Page 1 of 2
2 
 
to otherwise establish federal question jurisdiction under 
Grable. Dkt 28. 
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 1 996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) 
advisory committee note (1983). 
None of the parties filed objections. 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 28. 
The motion by Defendants to dismiss is DENIED AS 
MOOT for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt 5. 
This case is REMANDED to the 152nd Judicial District 
Court, Harris County, Texas. 
The Clerk is ORDERED to provide a copy of this Order to 
the Clerk of the 152nd  Judicial District Court, Harris 
County, Texas. 
SO ORDERED. 
Signed on June 12, 2026, at Houston, Texas. 
 
 
      ___________________________ 
      Honorable Charles Eskridge 
      United States District Judge 
 
Case 4:26-cv-00710     Document 30     Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight