Diann Iacobucci, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-11356 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: PRO , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 05/29/2014 [13-11356]

Download PDF
Case: 13-11356 Document: 00512624024 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-11356 Summary Calendar DIANN IACOBUCCI; DANIEL BURGERS, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 8, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiffs-Appellants v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for CitiGroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WFHE4, Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-WFHE4, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13-CV-1425 Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This appeal arises in the context of a foreclosure that prompted Plaintiffs-Appellants Iacobucci and Burgers (“Plaintiffs”) to sue DefendantsAppellees (“Defendants”) in state court. After Defendants removed that suit to the district court, they filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, relying principally on the Texas four-year limitations period for Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 13-11356 Document: 00512624024 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2014 No. 13-11356 constitutional claims of the nature asserted by Plaintiffs under §50(a)(6)(B) of Article XVI of the Texas Constitution. In its carefully crafted Memorandum Opinion and Order of November 13, 2013, the district court patiently reviewed the law applicable to the facts asserted by Plaintiffs and concluded that their state constitutional claims are time barred and that they cannot maintain any of their ancillary claims, e.g., breach of contract, Texas Debt Collection Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation. For essentially the same reasons cogently explained in its Order, the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ action is, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?