1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DEBBIE SOLIS,

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL TRUST 

TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 

SC6 TITLE TRUST, and 

RUSHMORE LOAN 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00575-S-BT

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court in this removed civil action is Defendants U.S. Bank 

National Association as Legal Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust (U.S. Bank) 

and Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC’s (Rushmore) (collectively 

“Defendants”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 11). For the reasons 

stated, the Motion should be GRANTED.

Background

On June 7, 2004, Plaintiff Debbie Solis and her husband obtained a 

mortgage loan (the “Loan”) to purchase property in Red Oak, TX (the “Property”), 

executing both a note and deed of trust to ensure repayment of the loan. App. Mot. 

Case 3:22-cv-00575-S-BT Document 13 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID 355
2

J. Pleadings, Ex. A, at 5-7 (ECF No. 12); App. Mot. J. Pleadings, Ex. B., at 9-27.1

Solis alleges that Defendants scheduled the Property for a foreclosure sale to occur 

on March 1, 2022. Notice Removal, Ex. C-1, Pl.’s Original Pet. 2 (ECF No. 1-4).

To prevent the foreclosure sale, Solis filed this suit in state court seeking 

injunctive and equitable relief and asserting claims of (i) negligent 

misrepresentation pertaining to handling of the Loan, (ii) violation of Texas 

Property Code Section 51.002 and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 

(RESPA), and (iii) breach of contract. Notice Removal, Pl.’s Original Pet., Ex. C-1, 

at 4-7. Defendants timely removed this case to federal court. Notice Removal 1-6 

(ECF No. 1).

This lawsuit is not the first civil action arising out of foreclosure proceedings

against the Property, as Defendants previously sought to sell the Property at 

foreclosure in June 2020. Mot. J. Pleadings 14-15. At that time, Solis’s husband 

filed suit against Defendants asserting similar claims.2 Notice Removal, Original 

1 Several of the facts on which the Court relies are drawn from documents attached 

to Defendants’ 12(c) motion to dismiss, are referenced in the Plaintiff’s Original 

Petition, and are central to the Plaintiff’s claims, or the facts are matters of public 

record. Therefore, the Court should conclude that they may be considered without 

converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment. See Ward v. Carrington 

Mortg. Servs. LLC, 2020 WL 5045655, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2020), adopted by

2020 WL 5038618 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2020) (“In deciding a motion to dismiss 

under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), the court may examine the complaint, documents 

attached to the complaint, documents attached to the motion to dismiss to which 

the complaint refers and which are central to the plaintiff's claims, and matters of 

public record.”). 

2 Nor are these two actions the only lawsuits arising out foreclosure proceedings 

against the Property. See also, Solis v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n (Solis III), No. 22-cvCase 3:22-cv-00575-S-BT Document 13 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID 356
3

Pet., Ex. C-1, Solis v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n (Solis I), No. 20-cv-1543 (N.D. Tex. 

June 11, 2020), ECF No. 1-4. The Court entered a final judgment dismissing all 

claims with prejudice against Solis’s husband on November 19, 2021. Final J., Solis 

I, No. 20-cv-1543 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2021), ECF No. 23.

Defendants now move for judgment on the pleadings, requesting the Court 

dismiss Solis’s claims with prejudice because the claims are barred by res judicata 

or because they fail on the merits. Solis—who is represented by counsel—did not 

respond to the Motion. This Court’s local rules require parties to file their 

responses to opposed motions within 21 days from the date the motion is filed. See

N.D. Tex. Local Civ. R. 7.1(e). Therefore, the Court may consider the Motion ripe 

and ready for determination.

Legal Standard

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) “is designed to 

dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the 

merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings and any 

judicially noticed facts.” Hebert Abstract v. Touchstone Props., Ltd., 914 F.2d 74, 

76 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (internal citations omitted). The standard for 

deciding a motion under Rule 12(c) is the same as the one for deciding a motion to 

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 543-44 (5th Cir. 

2010).

1777 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2022). In each case Plaintiff and her husband have been 

represented by the same attorney.

Case 3:22-cv-00575-S-BT Document 13 Filed 10/24/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID 357
4

When deciding a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, the court 

“accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to 

the plaintiff.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 

2007) (citation omitted). To survive a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the 

pleadings, therefore, a plaintiff's complaint must contain enough factual matter to 

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “To be plausible, the complaint's ‘[f]actual allegations must 

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’” In re Great Lakes 

Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201, 210 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555). This pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” 

but it does demand more than an unadorned accusation devoid of factual support. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows 

the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). “While legal conclusions 

can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Where the facts do not permit the Court to infer 

more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has stopped short of 

showing that the plaintiff is plausibly entitled to relief. Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 557).

Case 3:22-cv-00575-S-BT Document 13 Filed 10/24/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID 358
5

Analysis

Defendants argue the Court should dismiss Solis’s claims because (i) the

claims are barred by res judicata and (ii) the claims fail on the merits. As stated, 

Solis has not responded to the Motion. Because res judicata would bar any 

litigation, the Court addresses Defendants’ res judicata arguments first. See Test 

Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005).

Defendants assert res judicata applies in this case and that Solis’s “claims 

are barred by a final judgment entered in a previous lawsuit brought by her 

husband, Edelmiro G. Solis.” Mot. J. Pleadings 14. “Claim preclusion, or res 

judicata, bars the litigation of claims that either have been litigated or should have 

been raised in an earlier suit.” Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 365 F.3d 385, 

395 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 934 (5th Cir. 

1999)) (citing Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131 (1979) (“Res judicata prevents 

litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were previously available 

to the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior 

proceeding.”)). A claim is precluded when: “(1) the parties are identical or in 

privity; (2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent 

jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; 

and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions.” Test 

Masters Educ. Servs., Inc., 428 F.3d at 571 (citation omitted). The Fifth Circuit 

employs the “transaction test” to determine whether two actions involve the same 

claim or cause of action.” Id. (citation omitted). “Under the transactional test, a 

Case 3:22-cv-00575-S-BT Document 13 Filed 10/24/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID 359
6

prior judgment’s preclusive effect extends to all rights of the plaintiff ‘with respect 

to all or part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which 

the [original] action arose.’” Davis v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 313 

(5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., 365 F.3d at 395-96). The facts making 

up a transaction are “determined pragmatically”; however, the critical issue is 

“whether the two actions are based on the same nucleus of operative facts.” Id.

The first element of res judicata requires the parties to be identical or in 

privity. Hous. Pro. Towing Ass’n v. City of Houston, 812 F.3d 443, 447 (5th Cir. 

2016) (quoting Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 718 F.3d 460, 467 (5th Cir. 2013)). 

In situations where the parties are not identical, “federal courts have nevertheless 

held that in certain circumstances judgments can bind persons not party to the 

litigation in question.” Meza v. Gen. Battery Corp., 908 F.2d 1262, 1266 (5th Cir. 

1990). One such circumstance exists when parties are in privity to each other, that 

is, “there is a sufficient identity between parties to prior and subsequent suits for 

res judicata to apply.” Id. When a “substantive legal relationship” exists between 

the parties, claim preclusion may be justifiable. Cuauhtli v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 

308 F. App’x 772, 773. “[C]lose family relationships are not sufficient by 

themselves to establish privity with the original suit’s party, or to bind a nonparty 

to that suit by the judgment entered therein,” but additional legal interests are

sufficient. See id. Under Texas law, a fiduciary relationship is formed when spouses 

own community property controlled by each spouse, and “such a fiduciary 

relationship satisfies the identical-parties element of res judicata.” Smith v. 

Case 3:22-cv-00575-S-BT Document 13 Filed 10/24/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID 360
7

Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 2019 WL 4648263, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 

2019) (Rutherford, J.) (citing Cuahuhtli, 308 F. App’x at 773), adopted by 2019 

WL 4643678 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2019); see Tex. Fam. Code § 3.003(a) (“Property 

possessed by either spouse during or on dissolution of marriage is presumed to be 

community property.”).

Here, Solis’s husband was a party to litigation in June 2020 against 

Defendants relating to foreclosure of the Property. See Solis II, 2021 WL 1009332, 

at *1-4, adopted by 2021 WL 977095 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2021). Solis and her 

husband are both parties to the deed of trust, and they were married at the time 

they executed it. App. Mot. J. Pleadings, Ex. B, at 9, 24. Thus, a fiduciary 

relationship existed under Texas law, and this relationship is sufficient to satisfy 

the identical-parties element of res judicata. Smith, 2019 WL 4648263, at *6.

As to the second and third elements, the previous action arose in the 

Northern District of Texas and the court entered a final judgment dismissing all 

claims by Solis’s husband on their merits. Solis I, 2021 WL 977095, at *1; Final J., 

Solis I, No. 20-cv-1543 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2021), ECF No. 23. Thus, the prior 

action was brought in a court of competent jurisdiction and a final judgment was 

entered on the merits of the claim. See Stevens v. Bank of Am., N.A., 587 F. App’x 

130, 133 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (“Generally, a federal court’s dismissal with 

prejudice is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes.”)

Finally, the last element is satisfied because the present lawsuit arises out of

foreclosure proceedings related to the Property and include nearly identical claims. 

Case 3:22-cv-00575-S-BT Document 13 Filed 10/24/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID 361
8

Indeed, the Petitions filed in state court between the prior and current proceeding 

appear to be near copies; Solis’s original petition at one point even references her 

husband as the Plaintiff. Compare Pl.’s Original Pet. 1, 4-12 (ECF No. 1-4) with 

Pl.’s Original Pet., Solis I, No. 20-cv-01543 (N.D. Tex. June 11, 2020), ECF No. 1-

4. Both actions arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts regarding the

foreclosure on the Property and alleged claims against Defendants. Therefore, 

Defendants satisfy all the elements necessary to show claim preclusion.

Because Solis’s claims are barred by res judicata, the Court pretermits 

discussion on their merits, finds Defendants are entitled to judgment on the 

pleadings, and holds Solis’s claim should be dismissed.

The Court further recommends that this case be dismissed with prejudice 

and without giving Plaintiff any opportunity to amend, because any such 

amendment would be futile. See Ransom v. Nat’l City Mortg. Co., 2014 WL 717198, 

at *6 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2014).

Recommendation

For the reasons stated, Defendants U.S. Bank National Association as Legal 

Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust and Rushmore Loan Management 

Services, LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 11) should be 

GRANTED on res judicata grounds, and Solis’s claims and causes of action against 

Defendants should be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

Case 3:22-cv-00575-S-BT Document 13 Filed 10/24/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID 362
9

SO RECOMMENDED. 

October 24, 2022.

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and 

recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being 

served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to 

which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in 

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed 

determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or 

refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file 

specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual 

findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted 

by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United 

Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-00575-S-BT Document 13 Filed 10/24/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID 363