Dumas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

WALTER C. DUMAS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION NO. 25-00447-BAJ-RLB

AS TRUSTEE FOR RFMSI 2005S7,

ET AL.

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court are the following Motions:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 23);

(2) Defendant Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux, III’s (“Gautreaux”) Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 19); and

(3) Defendants U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for RFMSI 2005S7

(“U.S. Bank”) and Onity Group Inc.’s (“Onity”) Motion for Judgment on

the Pleadings (Doc. 45).1

The Motions are opposed. (Doc. 22; Doc. 26; Doc. 27; Doc. 29; Doc. 35; Doc. 47).

The parties filed Reply Briefs. (Doc. 25; Doc. 40; Doc. 48).

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report And Recommendation (Doc. 49,

the “Report”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

(Doc. 23), grant Gautreaux’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19), and grant U.S. Bank and

Onity’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 45). (Doc. 49 at 16). The

Magistrate Judge further recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims

1 Onity represents that it was formerly known as Ocwen Financial Corporation. (Doc. 45 at

1; Doc. 52 at 1).

against Defendants with prejudice. (Id.).

Plaintiff objected to the Report and requested that the Court hear oral

argument on his objections. (Doc. 50; Doc. 51). Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s

Objection (Doc. 52; Doc. 53). Plaintiff filed Reply Briefs in further support of his

Objection (Doc. 54; Doc. 55). After carefully considering the pleadings before the

Court, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary.

In this case, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages regarding the seizure and sale

of his home, alleging that Defendants “jointly participated with Louisiana State

officials in the illegal seizure and sale of Plaintiff’s Property in violation of Plaintiff’s

rights secured by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, which provide the

basis for Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C.A § 1983.” (Doc. 1-1 at 9).

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the state court already

ruled on the legality of the seizure and sale of Plaintiff’s property. The Report

emphasized: “Plaintiff is barred from relitigating the legality of the seizure and sale

of Plaintiff’s Property based on any property description discrepancy. No amendment

could fix this issue[.]” (Doc. 49 at 16). As such, the Magistrate Judge recommends

that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff objects to the Report, arguing the following: (1) the Court does not

have jurisdiction to hear this case; (2) Plaintiff should be permitted to pursue his

claims against Onity and U.S. Bank regarding the seizure and sale of his property

because issue preclusion is not appropriate; (3) Gautreaux acted with gross

negligence because he did not read the “Writ of Fieri Facias, the attached letter, and

judgment received April 20, 2022[.]” (See generally Doc. 50-1; Doc. 54; Doc. 55).

Defendants U.S. Bank and Onity respond that “Dumas’s objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation merely seek to re-hash the same

tired arguments and do not move the needle.” (Doc. 52 at 2). For the following reasons,

the Court agrees.

First, Plaintiff argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction over this case

because the Court should have granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 50-1 at

4). Plaintiff argues that the Court should have remanded this matter to state court

because Defendant Owcen Financial Corporation did not consent to removal of the

case to this Court. (Id. at 5). The record before the Court, however, shows otherwise.

As the Magistrate Judge already found:

Ocwen Financial Corporation did not consent to the removal of this case

because the entity is now called Onity Group, Inc., not Ocwen Financial

Corporation. As it is clear Onity filed the joint notice of removal

alongside U.S. Bank, through the same counsel, this Court finds there

is no issue with consent in this case. (R. Doc. 1). “It is sufficient that

consent to removal come from some person purporting to act formally on

the defendant’s behalf and with the authority to do so.” Nixon v.

Wheatley, 368 F. Supp. 2d 635, 639 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (quotations and

citations omitted) (cleaned up). Here, U.S. Bank and Onity’s counsel had

the authority to remove on their behalf and did so. The proper parties

joined in the notice of removal, and remand for lack of consent is

unfounded.

(Doc. 49 at 6). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge.

Second, Plaintiff argues that the doctrine of issue preclusion should not

prohibit him from pursuing his claims. Again, however, the record is clear. As the

Magistrate Judge emphasized:

[T]he main issue in this case is whether the seizure and sale of Plaintiff’s

Property was legal or not. Plaintiff argues the seizure was not legal

because the property description included in the Amended Final

Judgment differed slightly from the property description of the property

seized and sold (Plaintiff’s Property). Yet, Plaintiff raised this very

argument in the state foreclosure action, through a Petition for

Injunction to Arrest Seizure and Sale of Immovable Property with Stay

Order to Dismiss Writ of Fieri Facias, Damages, and Attorney Fees. (R.

Docs. 45-3). The state court initially granted his request for a stay, but,

after a hearing again addressing his argument, the state court vacated

the stay and denied and dismissed, with prejudice, Plaintiff’s Petition

for Injunction to Arrest Seizure and Sale of Immovable Property with

Stay Order to Dismiss Writ of Fieri Facias, Damages, and Attorney Fees,

allowing the sale to go forward. (R. Docs. 1-1 at 40; 45-5).

“A writ of seizure and sale in an executory proceeding instituted by a

foreclosing creditor against the borrower is a final judgment for res

judicata purposes once the sale has occurred.” Cavalier,

2015 WL 4429247, at *3 (citations omitted). It is clear the state

concluded the property description issue made by Plaintiff in this case

was immaterial to the legality of the foreclosure sale. Thus, this Court

finds the issue was actually litigated and its determination was

essential to the prior judgment. Id.

(Doc. 49 at 15). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding.

Third, Plaintiff argues that Gautreaux acted with gross negligence by failing

to read the documents relevant to the sale of Plaintiff’s property such that Gautreaux

should not be entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 50-1 at 12). Plaintiff argues:

In this case defendant Gautreaux’s action clearly show gross negligence.

Defendant Gautreaux received a Writ of Fieri Facias, a letter attached

to the Writ from U.S. Bank and a copy of the February 28, 2022,

Amended Final Judgment. U.S. Bank letter described the property U.S.

Bank wanted seized and sold at Sheriff sale.

The property described in U.S. Bank Writ ofFieri Facias and U.S. Bank

attached letter did not described the property described in the February

28, 2022, Amended Final Judgment.

Sheriff Gautreaux knew he could not seize and sell property not

described in the Writ of Fieri Facias received in his office was the result

of gross negligence.

Defendant Gautreaux, either failed to read the Writ of Fieri Facias or

just ignored it.

(Doc. 54 at 2). As previously described, the state court found the property description

issue Plaintiff asserts in this case to be immaterial to the legality of the foreclosure

sale. (See Doc. 49 at 15). As a result, the state court denied and dismissed Plaintiff’s

“Petition for Injunction to Arrest Seizure and Sale of Immovable Property with Stay

Order to Dismiss Writ of Fieri Facias, Damages, and Attorney Fees,” with prejudice,

permitting the sale of Plaintiff’s property to go forward. (Id.). Because Plaintiff

presents no new arguments that cause the Court to reach a different result here, the

Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report.

Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s Petition (Doc. 1-1), the underlying

Motions (Doc. 19; Doc 23; Doc. 45), related briefing (Doc. 22; Doc. 25; Doc. 26; Doc. 27;

Doc. 29; Doc. 35; Doc. 40; Doc. 47; Doc. 48), the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Doc. 49),

and the parties’ briefing in response to the Report (Doc. 50–Doc. 55) the Court

APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report And Recommendation and ADOPTS it

as the Court’s opinion in this matter.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 23) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Gautreaux’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants U.S. Bank and Onity’s

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 45) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Oral Argument

(Doc. 51) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against all Defendants

are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Final judgment shall be issued separately.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 23rd day,of January, 2026

JUDGE BRIAN A. zx

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA