Roger Connell, et al v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-20679 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: JEG , Judge: GJC Mandate issue date is 11/24/2017; denying motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellants Mr. Roger Connell and Mr. Richard Ashcroft [8439551-2]; denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Mr. Roger Connell and Mr. Richard Ashcroft [8439551-3] [16-20679]

Download PDF
Case: 16-20679 Document: 00514221948 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-20679 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 2, 2017 ROGER CONNELL; RICHARD ASHCROFT, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiffs - Appellants v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, L.L.C.; DOES 1-50, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CV-2841 Before DAVIS, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Roger Connell and Richard Ashcroft appeal the district court’s dismissal of their diversity action against Wells Fargo based on a forfeiture provision of a deferred compensation plan. The action was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” on the basis that the plan contained a North Carolina choice-of-law provision which allowed 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-20679 Document: 00514221948 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2017 No. 16-20679 forfeiture under the terms to which the parties agreed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court granted the dismissal with prejudice, finding that the parties’ choice of North Carolina law governed and that the forfeiture provision is valid and enforceable. This court has considered this appeal on the basis of the briefs, the record, and oral argument. Having done so, we conclude that the matter should be affirmed, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. Because the district court did not err, we AFFIRM. All outstanding motions are DENIED. 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?