Winfried Ruggia v. Washington Mutual

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-01067-LO-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998652479].. [10-1661]

Appeal: 10-1661

Document: 34

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1661

WINFRIED P. RUGGIA; EUN HUI RUGGIA,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL, a division of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.;
JPMC
SPECIALTY
MORTGAGE,
LLC;
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INCORPORATED; EQUITY TRUSTEES, LLC,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS, INCORPORATED; JOE DOE; JOHN & JANE
DOE, Certificate Holders I-M; JACK & JILL DOE, Certificate
Holders I-M; QUI & CHI DOE.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:09-cv-01067-LO-TRJ)

Submitted:

August 3, 2011

Decided:

August 11, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Edwin Brown, BROWN, BROWN & BROWN, PC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellants. John C. Lynch, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP,
Virginia Beach, Virginia; Jonathan S. Hubbard, TROUTMAN SANDERS,

Appeal: 10-1661

Document: 34

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 2 of 3

LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 10-1661

Document: 34

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Winfried
court’s
motion

order
to

and

granting

dismiss

Eun

Hui

Ruggia

Defendants’

their

state

appeal

Fed.

law

R.

the

district

P.

12(b)(6)

Civ.

claims

for

declaratory

judgment, quiet title, and fraud, as well as their claim under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 16921692p (West 2009 & Supp. 2011).
find no reversible error.
court’s order.

We have reviewed the record and

Accordingly, we affirm the district

See Ruggia v. Washington Mutual, No. 1:09-cv-

01067-LO-TRJ (E.D. Va. May 13, 2010); see also Horvath v. Bank
of N.Y., N.A., 641 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2011).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

the

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3