1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

ZACHARY-WAYNE WHITE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FIFTH THIRD BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-847-SDJ-KPJ

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court are the following motions:

• Plaintiff Zachary-Wayne White’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Sanctions Against Respondents 

Fifth Third Bank, National Association, Fannie Mae and their Counsel for Improper 

Pleadings (the “Motion for Sanctions”) (Dkt. 21), to which Defendants Fifth Third Bank, 

National Association (“Fifth Third”) and Fannie Mae as Trustee for Securitized Trust 

FNMA 2020-009 Trust (“Fannie Mae”) filed a response (Dkt. 23);

• Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking to Compel Compliance with Rule 26 (the “Motion to Compel”) 

(Dkt. 25), to which Fifth Third, Fannie Mae, and Defendants AVT Title Services, LLC 

(“AVT Title Services”), and Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C.’s (“Mackie Wolf”) 

(collectively, “Defendants”) filed a response (Dkt. 27);

• Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification of Presumptions (the “Motion for Clarification”) 

(Dkt. 30), to which Defendants filed a response (Dkt. 34), and Plaintiff filed a reply 

(Dkt. 35); and

• Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking a Status Conference and a Hearing to Disposition Open Motions 

(the “Motion for Hearing”) (Dkt. 31).

For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 21), the Motion to Compel (Dkt. 25), 

the Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 30), and the Motion for Hearing (Dkt. 31) are DENIED.

A. Motion for Sanctions

On October 26, 2023, Fifth Third and Fannie Mae filed an answer (the “Answer”) (Dkt. 19) 

to Plaintiff’s revised claim (the “Amended Pleading”) (Dkt. 10), wherein they denied most of 

Plaintiff’s factual allegations and asserted twenty-seven affirmative defenses. See Dkt. 19. On 

Case 4:23-cv-00847-SDJ-KPJ Document 36 Filed 08/19/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 957
2

October 31, 2023, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed the Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 21), 

wherein he argues that Fifth Third, Fannie Mae, and their attorneys dishonestly denied his factual 

allegations. Dkt. 21 at 2. Plaintiff further argues that Fifth Third, Fannie Mae, and their attorneys 

improperly asserted affirmative defenses and did not specifically explain which defenses apply to 

which claims. Id. at 1. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the affirmative defenses “relied heavily on 

copy and paste from other sources,” as demonstrated by typographical errors. Id. at 2.

In their response, Fifth Third and Fannie Mae argue that the Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 21) 

should be denied because Plaintiff failed to comply with the safe harbor provision of Rule 11 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; that is, Plaintiff did not first serve the Motion for Sanctions 

(Dkt. 21) and give them an opportunity to rectify any purported violation of Rule 11. See Dkt. 23 

at 3. Fifth Third and Fannie Mae further argue that none of the conduct asserted by Plaintiff is 

sanctionable. Id. at 3–4. The Court agrees with Fifth Third and Fannie Mae.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper . . . an attorney 

or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, 

information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the 

circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause 

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing 

law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing 

existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so 

identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity 

for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if 

specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of 

information.

Case 4:23-cv-00847-SDJ-KPJ Document 36 Filed 08/19/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 958
3

FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b). While a party may move for sanctions under Rule 11, that motion “must not 

be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial 

is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the 

court sets.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(2); see Kennard L. P.C. v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 23-20430, 

2024 WL 3717272, at *3 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024). In other words, “this rule creates a 21-day period 

of safe harbor whereby parties can avoid sanctions by withdrawing or correcting the challenged 

document or position after being served the motion for sanctions.” Van Tiem v. First Am. Home 

Warranty Corp., No. 18-cv-458, 2021 WL 6775326, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2021) (cleaned up) 

(quoting Margetis v. Furgeson, 666 F. App’x 328, 331 (5th Cir. 2016)). Strict compliance with 

Rule 11 is required and, thus, “[a] party’s failure to comply with the safe harbor provision generally 

precludes a district court from granting the party’s motion for sanctions.” Askins v. Hagopian, 

713 F. App’x 380, 380–81 (5th Cir. 2018) (first quoting In re Pratt, 524 F.3d 580, 588 & n.30 

(5th Cir. 2008); and then citing Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995)).

In the present case, Plaintiff provides no indication that he served Fifth Third, Fannie Mae, 

and their attorneys at least twenty-one days prior to filing the Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 21). See 

Dkt. 21. Indeed, Fifth Third and Fannie Mae represent that they were not served with the Motion 

for Sanctions (Dkt. 21) prior to its filing. See Dkt. 23 at 3 (“Plaintiff made no effort to serve the 

Motion for Sanctions or give Defendants an opportunity to correct the alleged defects in their 

Original Answer before filing the same.”). Furthermore, Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of 

the Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 21) and, thus, failed to dispute these representations. For these

reasons, the Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 21) is DENIED. In any event, the Court has carefully 

reviewed the Answer (Dkt. 19) and concludes that none of its contents are sanctionable. See, e.g., 

WSOU Invs., LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 20-cv-1163, 2024 WL 1207167, at *3 (W.D. Tex. 

Case 4:23-cv-00847-SDJ-KPJ Document 36 Filed 08/19/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 959
4

Feb. 22, 2024), R. & R. adopted, 2024 WL 1200959 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2024) (declining to award 

sanctions where the pleading “could have been improved” and included “some copy-and-paste 

errors”).

B. Motion to Compel & Motion for Hearing

On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Compel (Dkt. 25), wherein he requests 

that the Court compel Defendants to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference. See Dkt. 25 at 1–2. 

According to Plaintiff, the failure to set a conference “has the effect of stalling and delaying 

prosecution of this case and, in effect, imposing a unilateral stay on all discovery.” Id. at 2. On 

May 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Hearing (Dkt. 31), wherein he requests a status 

conference be held in this case. See Dkt. 31.

The Court has not yet set a Rule 16 management conference because, in their notice of 

removal, Defendants challenge the propriety of the joinder of Fannie Mae and Mackie Wolf—both 

of whom are non-diverse parties. See Dkt. 1. The resolution of this issue is dispositive of the 

Court’s jurisdiction and, as such, determines whether this matter will proceed here or be remanded 

to state court. The Court is currently considering this issue. Once resolved, this case will either be 

set for a scheduling conference or remanded to state court. Plaintiff need not file additional, 

duplicative motions. The Court is aware of this case, as well as the jurisdictional issues presented

herein. Thus, the Motion to Compel (Dkt. 25) and the Motion for Hearing (Dkt. 31) are DENIED

and, in any event, will be rendered moot once the jurisdictional challenges are resolved.

C. Motion for Clarification

On May 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 30), wherein he asks 

the Court “for clarification of any legal presumptions.” Dkt. 30 at 1. Specifically, Plaintiff asks the 

Court to answer several questions “to make certain that [he] has the comprehension needed to not 

Case 4:23-cv-00847-SDJ-KPJ Document 36 Filed 08/19/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 960
5

be at a disadvantage.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff further suggests that, if the Court fails to respond within 

thirty days, “the parties and the court will adopt the resultant presumptions as factual for the 

duration and for all purposes of these proceedings.” Id. At the threshold, the Court notes that “a 

lawsuit is an adversarial proceeding, and the Court is not permitted to give any legal advice to a 

party—whether that party appears pro se or through counsel.” Zamora v. GC Servs., LP., No. 15-

cv-48, 2018 WL 11361333, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2018) (citing Baker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 

1107, 1129 n.26 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981)). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s “pro se status does not 

excuse [him] from complying with federal statutes, rules of civil procedure, or local rules.” Perkins 

v. United States, 314 F. Supp. 2d 664, 670 (E.D. Tex. 2004). Cognizant of the Court’s limited role 

as an independent arbiter of this adversarial proceeding, and because the Court will not offer legal 

advice to Plaintiff, the Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 30) is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 21), the Motion to Compel 

(Dkt. 25), the Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 30), and the Motion for Hearing (Dkt. 31) are 

DENIED.

Case 4:23-cv-00847-SDJ-KPJ Document 36 Filed 08/19/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 961