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

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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