Moore et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
CHRISTINE M. MOORE and
MICHAEL MOORE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE);
PRISCILLA ALMODOVAR; PETER
AKWABOAH; BARRETT DAFFIN
FRAPPIER TURNER & ENGEL, LLP;
JOSEPH M. VACEK; SHELLEY NAIL
TRUSTEE; OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC; MACKIE WOLF
ZIENTZ & MANN, PC; ISRAEL
SAUCEDO; ALDRIDGE PITE LLP;
WILLIAM JARRELL; PAUL
MARCHUK; TREVOR SHOELS;
FREEDOM MORTGAGE
CORPORATION; DAVID COBOS; and
MARVIN MOORE;
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
MO:25-CV-00326-DC-RCG
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BEFORE THE COURT is the status of this case following the Court’s prior Report and
Recommendation denying remand and finding several nondiverse defendants improperly joined,
and Plaintiffs’ Response to the Court’s May 22, 2026, Show Cause Order. (Docs. 27, 61, 63).1
This case is before the Court through a Standing Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and
Appendix C of the Local Court Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate
Judges. After reviewing the relevant filings, the applicable law, and Plaintiffs’ show cause
Response, the Court RECOMMENDS the remaining nondiverse, improperly joined defendants
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the
claims against the unserved diverse defendants be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
1. All page number citations are to CM/ECF generated pagination unless otherwise noted.
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 69 Filed 07/07/26 Page 1 of 8

2
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Christine Moore and Michael Moore, proceeding pro se, filed this action in the
385th Judicial District Court of Midland County, Texas, asserting claims for wrongful
foreclosure, quiet title, fraud, and civil rights violations arising from the December 2015
foreclosure on, and subsequent eviction from, their home located at 1001 S. County Road 1060,
Midland, Texas. (Doc.1-1). Plaintiffs allege Defendants foreclosed on the property without
lawful authority, fabricated or forged instruments affecting title, and used those instruments to
obtain their eviction, and they seek substantial actual and punitive damages. Id. On July 25,
2025, Defendants PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”) and Federal National Mortgage
Association (“Fannie Mae”) removed the case to this Court based on the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs moved to remand arguing the
presence of multiple Texas-based defendants destroyed complete diversity and removal was
therefore improper. (Doc. 16).
On December 1, 2025, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand be denied. (Doc. 27.) First, the Court concluded
Defendants PHH, Fannie Mae, and Freedom Mortgage Corporation were properly joined and
completely diverse from Plaintiffs. Id. Then, applying the Fifth Circuit’s improper joinder
framework, the Court found Plaintiffs failed to state a viable cause of action against the
Texas-based defendants, including Barrett Daffin; Mackie Wolf; and individual substitute
trustees Joseph M. Vacek; Israel Saucedo; William Jarrell; Paul Marchuk; Trevor Shoels; David
Cobos; and Marvin Moore (collectively, “Substitute Trustees”). Id. The Court therefore deemed
those Defendants improperly joined, disregarded their Texas citizenship for purposes of
assessing diversity, and concluded complete diversity—and thus subject matter jurisdiction—
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 69 Filed 07/07/26 Page 2 of 8

3
existed. Id. The District Court adopted that R&R and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand was
effectively denied. (Doc. 29.)
On January 13, 2026, the Court issued additional R&R’s recommending Defendants
Barrett Daffin; Shelley Nail; Freedom Mortgage Corporation; and PHH and Fannie Mae’s
motions to dismiss be granted. (Docs. 30, 31, 32, 33). The District Court subsequently adopted
those R&R’s and dismissed those Defendants. (Doc. 56). These dismissals left Mackie Wolf;
Aldridge Pite; and Substitute Trustees Priscilla Almodovar; Peter Akwaboah; Joseph M. Vacek;
Israel Saucedo; William Jarrell; Paul Marchuk; Trevor Shoels; David Cobos, and Marvin Moore
as Defendants.
On May 22, 2026, the Court issued a Show Cause Order recounting the earlier improper
joinder determination, noted Defendants Barrett Daffin; Shelly Nail; Freedom Mortgage
Corporation; PHH; and Fannie Mae “have since been dismissed,” and reiterated Defendants
Mackie Wolf and Substitute Trustees Joseph M. Vacek; Israel Saucedo; William Jarrell; Paul
Marchuk; Trevor Shoels; David Cobos, and Marvin Moore had been found improperly joined.
(Doc. 61). The Order further explained any nondiverse defendant previously found to have been
improperly joined “must be dismissed without prejudice,” and it directed Plaintiffs to identify the
citizenship of each remaining defendant and demonstrate complete diversity exists. Further, it
required Plaintiffs to show cause why claims against any unserved diverse defendants should not
be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Id. at 2–3.
On June 5, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a detailed Response to the Order to Show Cause.
(Doc. 63). In a table and joint declaration, Plaintiffs identified the citizenship of the remaining
defendants, asserting Mackie Wolf is a Texas corporation and Substitute Trustees Joseph M.
Vacek; Israel Saucedo; William Jarrell; Paul Marchuk; Trevor Shoels; David Cobos; and Marvin
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 69 Filed 07/07/26 Page 3 of 8

4
Moore are Texas residents. Id. Plaintiffs further discuss Aldridge Pite, Priscilla Almodovar, and
Peter Akwaboah, but their Response does not affirmatively allege those Defendants’ citizenship
or domicile; nonetheless, the Court has treated these Defendants as diverse for purposes of
subject matter jurisdiction. In sum, following the dismissal of Defendants Barrett Daffin; Shelly
Nail; Freedom Mortgage Corporation; PHH; and Fannie Mae, the remaining nondiverse
Defendants previously held to be improperly joined include Mackie Wolf and Substitute Trustees
Joseph M. Vacek; Israel Saucedo; William Jarrell; Paul Marchuk; Trevor Shoels; David Cobos;
and Marvin Moore, while the remaining diverse Defendants include Aldridge Pite—which has
appeared through counsel—Priscilla Almodovar, and Peter Akwaboah, who remain unserved.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“When, as here, a court determines that a nondiverse party has been improperly joined
. . . that party must be dismissed without prejudice.” Int’l Energy Ventures, 818 F.3d at 209. If
subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity, a court never has jurisdiction over a nondiverse
party. Id. “[T]he presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single
defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action.”
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005).
Therefore, as long as a nondiverse party remains joined, the only issue the court may
consider is that of jurisdiction itself. Int’l Energy Ventures, 818 F.3d at 209. This is because “a
federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.” United States v. Ruiz,
536 U.S. 622, 622 (2002). This limited authority permits the court to grant a motion to remand if
a nondiverse party is properly joined. Int’l Energy Ventures, 818 F.3d at 209. It also permits the
court to deny such a motion if a party is improperly joined and, in so doing, to dismiss the party
that has been improperly joined. Id.
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 69 Filed 07/07/26 Page 4 of 8

5
III. DISCUSSION
A. Improper Joinder and Nondiverse Defendants
In the R&R denying remand, the Court found Plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim
against Mackie Wolf and Substitute Trustees Joseph M. Vacek; Israel Saucedo; William Jarrell;
Paul Marchuk; Trevor Shoels; David Cobos; and Marvin Moore and therefore concluded those
defendants were improperly joined for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 27). The District
Court subsequently adopted that R&R. (Doc. 29). Plaintiffs’ Response to the Court’s Show
Cause Order now supplies the Court with the citizenship information that was missing from the
original pleadings. (Doc. 63). Specifically, Plaintiffs’ state Mackie Wolf is a Texas corporation
and Substitute Trustees Joseph M. Vacek; Israel Saucedo; William Jarrell; Paul Marchuk; Trevor
Shoels; David Cobos; and Marvin Moore are Texas residents. Id. Plaintiffs also confirm their
own Texas residence. Id. These allegations establish the remaining Defendants at issue in this
jurisdictional analysis—Mackie Wolf; Joseph M. Vacek; Israel Saucedo; William Jarrell; Paul
Marchuk; Trevor Shoels; David Cobos; and Marvin Moore—are nondiverse from Plaintiffs.
Under Int’l Energy Ventures, once the Court has determined a nondiverse defendant is
improperly joined, that defendant “must be dismissed” because the Court never acquires subject
matter jurisdiction over that party. 818 F.3d at 209. Indeed, the Court’s Show Cause Order
expressly advised Plaintiffs any nondiverse defendant previously found to be improperly joined
would have to be dismissed in accordance with Int’l Energy Ventures. (Doc. 61). Accordingly,
consistent with the Court’s prior improper joinder ruling, Int’l Energy Ventures, and Plaintiffs’
own citizenship allegations, the Court finds Defendants Mackie Wolf; Joseph M. Vacek; Israel
Saucedo; William Jarrell; Paul Marchuk; Trevor Shoels; David Cobos; and Marvin Moore are
nondiverse and improperly joined and therefore RECOMMENDS they be DISMISSED
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 69 Filed 07/07/26 Page 5 of 8

6
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Int’l Energy Ventures,
818 F.3d at 209.
B. Remaining Defendants and Rule 4(m) Issues
That leaves us with Defendants Aldridge Pite, Priscilla Almodovar, and Peter Akwaboah.
As to Defendants Priscilla Almodovar and Peter Akwaboah, more than 90 days have elapsed
since this action was filed, and the docket still reflects no proof of service or waiver of service as
to either of them. Plaintiffs were expressly ordered to complete service within a specified time
and admonished failure to do so could result in dismissal; yet, since filing their June 5, 2026,
Response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs have taken no further steps to serve Defendants
Priscilla Almodovar and Peter Akwaboah. (Docs. 61, 63).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides if a defendant is not served within 90 days
after a complaint is filed, the Court “must dismiss the action without prejudice against that
defendant or order that service be made within a specified time,” absent a showing of good
cause. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). In light of Plaintiffs’ continued inaction, the Court finds
Plaintiffs have not shown good cause and dismissal of the claims against Defendants Priscilla
Almodovar and Peter Akwaboah without prejudice is warranted under Rule 4(m). Accordingly,
the Court RECOMMENDS Defendants Priscilla Almodovar and Peter Akwaboah be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Lastly, the record reflects Defendant Aldridge Pite has appeared through counsel.
(Doc. 18). Under the Fifth Circuit’s improper joinder framework, the jurisdictional inquiry is
used solely to determine whether the Court has diversity jurisdiction over nondiverse parties; it
does not authorize dismissal of a diverse, appearing defendant on improper joinder grounds.
See Int’l Energy, 818 F.3d at 210. Thus, the dismissals recommended above are limited to the
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 69 Filed 07/07/26 Page 6 of 8

7
nondiverse defendants over whom the Court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
Accordingly, if the recommended dismissals are adopted, Aldridge Pite will be the only
remaining defendant in this action.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS Defendants Mackie Wolf; Joseph
M. Vacek; Israel Saucedo; William Jarrell; Paul Marchuk; Trevor Shoels; David Cobos; and
Marvin Moore be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as nondiverse defendants previously
determined to have been improperly joined. The Court further RECOMMENDS the claims
against Defendants Priscilla Almodovar and Peter Akwaboah be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Lastly, for purposes of
clarification, if this R&R is adopted, Aldridge Pite—having appeared through counsel and
treated as diverse for jurisdictional purposes—will be the sole remaining defendant in this action.
SIGNED this 7th day of July, 2026.
RONALD C. GRIFFIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 69 Filed 07/07/26 Page 7 of 8

8
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
In the event that a party has not been served by the Clerk with this Report and
Recommendation electronically, pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures of this District, the Clerk is
ORDERED to mail such party a copy of this Report and Recommendation by certified mail.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to this report must serve and
file written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. A party filing
objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendations to which
objections are being made; the District Judge need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections. Such party shall file the objections with the Clerk of the Court and serve the
objections on all other parties. A party’s failure to file such objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report shall bar the party from a de novo
determination by the District Judge. Additionally, a party’s failure to file written objections to
the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of
plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the District Judge. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 69 Filed 07/07/26 Page 8 of 8