From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Peirce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Sep 7, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-cv-98 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 7, 2016)

Summary

permitting a successive motion to dismiss when delay was not a concern because the court had not ruled on any of the pending motions to dismiss

Summary of this case from Polar Pro Filters Inc. v. FrogSlayer, LLC

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-cv-98

09-07-2016

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. JAMES G. PEIRCE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court are the Peirces' Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 7), the U.S. Small Business Administration's ("SBA") Motion to Dismiss the Original Third Party Petition (Doc. No. 8), the SBA's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Third Party Complaint (Doc. No. 17), the SBA's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Third Party Complaint (Doc. No. 26), and the Peirces' Motion to Refer the Case to Mediation (Doc. No. 28). These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo for a report and recommendation.

On August 12, 2016, Judge Palermo issued a Report and Recommendation on the above-listed motions. (Doc. No. 32). Judge Palermo recommended that 1) the SBA's Motion to Dismiss the Original Third Party Petition be denied as moot, 2) the SBA's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Third Party Complaint be denied as moot, 3) the SBA's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Third Party Complaint be granted, and 4) the Peirces' Motion to Remand be granted. Judge Palermo ordered that the Peirces' Motion to Refer the Case to Mediation be denied as moot. The time for filing objections has passed, and no objections were filed.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, l) the SBA's Motion to Dismiss the Original Third Party Petition is DENIED AS MOOT, 2) the SBA's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Third Party Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT, 3) the SBA's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Third Party Complaint is GRANTED, 4) the Peirces' Motion to Remand is GRANTED, and 5) the Peirces' Motion to Refer the Case to Mediation is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 7th day of September, 2016.

/s/_________

KEITH P. ELLISON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Peirce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Sep 7, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-cv-98 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 7, 2016)

permitting a successive motion to dismiss when delay was not a concern because the court had not ruled on any of the pending motions to dismiss

Summary of this case from Polar Pro Filters Inc. v. FrogSlayer, LLC
Case details for

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Peirce

Case Details

Full title:WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. JAMES G. PEIRCE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Date published: Sep 7, 2016

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-cv-98 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 7, 2016)

Citing Cases

Polar Pro Filters Inc. v. FrogSlayer, LLC

Other courts have similarly permitted successive motions "when the problem [Rule] 12(g) was designed to…