Benavides, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2019-cv-01335

Rule 26(f) Discovery Report/Case Management Plan (Joint) by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION JUAN BENAVIDES, JR., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-01335-XR § WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., § § Defendant. § JOINT FED. R. CIV. P. 26 REPORT The Parties file this Rule 26(f) Conference Report. 1. Are there any outstanding jurisdictional issues? For removed cases based on diversity jurisdiction, do the parties agree that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal? If not, each party should state its position on the amount in controversy. There are not any outstanding jurisdictional issues. This case was removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and the parties agree that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal. 2. Are there any unserved parties? If more than 90 days have passed since the filing of the Complaint or petition, should these unserved parties be dismissed? No. All parties have been served or otherwise appeared herein. 3. What are the causes of action, defenses, and counterclaims in this case? What are the elements of the cause(s) of action, defenses, and counterclaims pled? Plaintiff filed this lawsuit to prevent the foreclosure of real property located at 9218 Rue de Lis, San Antonio, Texas 78250 (the "Property"). Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, violation of the Texas Property Code, and breach of contract. Defendant contends that Plaintiff borrowed money, promised to pay it back, and failed to do so. Defendant further claims that it is entitled to foreclose on the Property pursuant to the relevant deed of trust and that Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law and that. 1 4. Are there any agreements or stipulations that can be made about any facts in this case or any element in the cause(s) of action? The Parties stipulate to the following facts:  Plaintiff borrowed $99,170 from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., on or about May 24, 2012.  In connection with the Loan, Plaintiff executed a promissory note and deed of trust securing repayment of the Loan with the Property.  Plaintiff is currently in default on his payment obligations under the Loan. 5. State the parties' views and proposals on all items identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3). (a) The Parties do not believe any changes to the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a) need to be made at this time. The parties will serve initial disclosures by January 17, 2019. (b) Discovery may be needed on all issues relevant to Plaintiff's claims and all issues relevant to Defendant's defenses. The Parties do not believe that discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues. The Parties propose that the deadline to complete discovery be July 31, 2020. (c) The Parties are not aware of any issues relating to disclosure and discovery of ESI, and will confer regarding the best means of production when and if the issue arises. (d) The Parties will assert any claims of privilege in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Parties are not aware of any other issues relating to claims of privilege or protection at this time. (e) The Parties do not believe that any changes should be made to the limitations on discovery provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. (f) The Parties are unaware of the need for orders under Rule 26(c) or Rule 16(b) and (c) at this time. However, the Parties' anticipated depositions and written discovery efforts may reveal the necessity for such orders, and the Parties therefore reserve the right to request these orders at a later date if necessary. 6. What, if any, discovery has been completed? What discovery remains to be done? Have the parties considered conducting discovery in phases? To date, no discovery has been completed. Defendant may serve written discovery on Plaintiff and conduct depositions. The Parties agree that discovery should be focused on relevant issues and should not be conducted in phases. 7. What, if any, discovery disputes exist? There are currently no discovery disputes. 2 8. Have the parties discussed the desirability of filing a proposed order pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502? The Parties do not plan on filing a proposed order pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502 at this time. 9. Have the parties discussed mediation? The Parties believe that informal settlement negotiations would be the most appropriate form of alternative dispute resolution at this time, but after further evaluation of the issues in the case and discovery has been completed, mediation might be appropriate. The Parties intend to confer to reach an agreement on a mediator at the appropriate time. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert C. Newark, III /s/ Elizabeth Hayes B. David L. Foster Robert C. Newark, III State Bar No. 24031555 State Bar No. 24040097 dfoster@lockelord.com office@newarkfirm.com LOCKE LORD LLP A Newark Firm 600 Congress Ave., Suite 2200 1341 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 600W Austin, Texas 78701 Dallas, Texas 75247 (512) 305-4700 Telephone: 866-230-7236 (512) 305-4800 (Facsimile) Facsimile: 888-316-3398 Robert T. Mowrey ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Texas Bar No. 14607500 rmowrey@lockelord.com Elizabeth Hayes State Bar No. 24069001 elizabeth.hayes@lockelord.com LOCKE LORD LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, Texas 75201-6776 (214) 740-8000 (214) 740-8800 (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served as indicated on this 2nd day of January, 2020, to the following: VIA ECF Robert C. Newark, III A Newark Firm 1341 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 600W Dallas, Texas 75247 Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ Elizabeth Hayes Elizabeth Hayes 4