Caballero v. FCI Lender Services Inc, 3:22-cv-01578

Plaintiff Antonio Caballero claims ownership of real property at 14105 Rocksprings Court, Dallas, Texas, and alleges a foreclosure sale occurred April 5, 2022.
A Notice of Substitute Trustee Sale, recorded Feb. 2022, identified Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (Owner) as beneficiary and FCI Lender Services, Inc. as servicer.
Caballero sent Qualified Written Requests in March and April 2022 alleging $104,800.55 in payments were not credited and demanding the sale be stopped; he alleges no sale occurred within the Notice’s 1:00–4:00 p.m. window but Owner later filed eviction.
Caballero sued for wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, and an accounting; Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice, principally because Caballero failed to allege tender of the full amount due (a condition precedent to setting aside a foreclosure) and failed to state viable claims for declaratory relief or accounting.
The court also found attachments (Notice of Sale, QWRs, proof of payment) part of the pleadings and concluded further amendment was unwarranted because the plaintiff had already been given leave and appeared to have pleaded his best case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Tender requirement to set aside foreclosure	Caballero disputes sale validity and alleges payments were not credited, seeking to set aside the sale	Defendants: plaintiff failed to tender the full amount due, a prerequisite to setting aside a sale	Plaintiff failed to allege tender; dismissal granted for failure to state claim
2. Declaratory relief	Seeks declaration of interests in the Property	Defendants: declaratory relief is merely a remedy tied to plaintiff’s deficient claims	Dismissed because no viable underlying claim or justiciable controversy alleged
3. Accounting	Requests an accounting for alleged uncredited payments totaling $104,800.55	Defendants: accounting is a remedy for the foreclosure claims and not warranted when claims fail; no basis for equitable accounting alleged	Dismissed: no viable substantive claim and plaintiff didn’t show need for equitable accounting
4. Opportunity to amend / dismissal with prejudice	Plaintiff had previously amended his complaint after initial dismissal recommendation	Defendants: further amendment not warranted	Court found plaintiff had been given leave, failed to cure defects, and recommended dismissal with prejudice

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes pleading plausibility standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarifies that legal conclusions are not entitled to assumed truth)
Fillion v. David Silvers Co., 709 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. App. 1986) (tender of amounts owed is prerequisite to recovery of title after foreclosure)
Willoughby v. Jones, 251 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. 1952) (same principle regarding tender as prerequisite)
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (attachments to complaints may be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2000) (documents attached to motions are part of the pleadings if central and referenced)
Great Plains Tr. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2002) (guidance on leave to amend pleadings)
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 1999) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate when plaintiff has pled his best case)