Cady et al v. Wells Fargo Bank
Filing
16
Memorandum Opinion and Order...deft's motion for summary judgment is granted; pltfs take nothing on their claims; claims dismissed w/prej. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 10/26/2015) (wrb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRiqT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE¥AS
FORT WORTH DIVISION!
!
CI.Eii.:<, l!.S. DISTRICT COURT
JEFFREY A. CADY, ET AL.,
§
§
Plaintiffs,
By _ __
Dqwly
--------'
§
§
vs.
§
§
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS
TRUSTEE, IN TRUST FOR THE
REGISTERED HOLDERS OF
PARK PLACE SECURITIES, INC.,
ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-WC3,
§
§
Defendant.
§
NO. 4:14-CV-891-A
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion of defendant, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee for the certificateholders of Park
Place Securities, Inc., asset-backed pass-through certificates,
series 2005-WCW3, 1 for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, Jeffrey A.
Cady and Janet A. Cady, have failed to respond to the motion,
which is ripe for ruling. The court, having considered the
motion, the record, the summary judgment evidence, and applicable
authorities, finds that the motion should be granted.
I.
Plaintiffs' Claims
On October 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed their original petition
in the 352nd Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas,
1
Defendant says that it was incorrectly named in plaintiffs first amended complaint.
seeking to prevent the foreclosure of property located in Tarrant
County, Texas. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant lacked authority
to conduct the foreclosure because the originating lender
improperly placed an escrow account and misapplied payments
thereafter. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Texas Debt
Collection Act, Tex. Fin. Code§ 392.304(a) (8) & (19), and for
breach of contract. They also requested a declaratory judgment
that they were not in default on their loan.
Defendant brought the action before this court by notice of
removal filed November 3, 2014. The court ordered that plaintiffs
file an amended complaint in keeping with the requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On November 17, 2015,
plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint asserting the same
substantive claims, but omitting the request for declaratory
relief.
II.
Grounds of the Motion
Defendant first urges that plaintiffs' claims are barred by
res judicata and/or collateral estoppel, as plaintiffs' claims
were or could have been the subject of an earlier lawsuit against
defendant's predecessor. In the alternative, defendant urges that
plaintiffs could not prevail in any event as their loan was
properly handled.
2
III.
Applicable Summary Judgment Principles
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that the court shall grant summary judgment on a claim or defense
if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247
(1986) .
The movant bears the initial burden of pointing out to
the court that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 325 (1986).
The movant can discharge this burden by pointing out the absence
of evidence supporting one or more essential elements of the
nonmoving party's claim, "since a complete failure of proof
concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case
necessarily renders all other facts immaterial."
Id. at 323.
Once the movant has carried its burden under Rule 56(a), the
nonmoving party must identify evidence in the record that creates
a genuine dispute as to each of the challenged elements of its
case.
Id. at 324; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
("A party
asserting that a fact . . . is genuinely disputed must support
the assertion by
the record
citing to particular parts of materials in
.").
If the evidence identified could not lead
a rational trier of fact to find in favor of the nonmoving party
3
as to each essential element of the nonmoving party's case, there
is no genuine dispute for trial and summary judgment is
appropriate.
475
u.s.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
574, 587, 597
In Mississippi Prot. & Advocacy
(1986).
Sys., Inc. v. Cotten, the Fifth Circuit explained:
Where the record, including affidavits,
interrogatories, admissions, and depositions could not,
as a whole, lead a rational trier of fact to find for
the nonmoving party, there is no issue for trial.
929 F.2d 1054, 1058
(5th Cir. 1991).
The standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is
the same as the standard for rendering judgment as a matter of
law. 2
Celotex Corp., 477
u.s.
at 323.
If the record taken as a
whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.
Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 597; see also Mississippi Prot. &
Advocacy Sys., 929 F.2d at 1058.
IV.
Analysis
Federal courts give state court judgments the same
preclusive effect as they would be given under the law of the
state where rendered. A.L.T. Corp. v. Small Bus. Admin., 801 F.2d
2
ln Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365,374-75 (5th Cir. 1969) (en bane), the Fifth Circuit
explained the standard to be applied in determining whether the court should enter judgment on motions
for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
4
1451, 1455 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist.
Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984)). Under Texas law, res
judicata or claim preclusion applies where there is a prior
judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction,
identity of parties or those in privity with them, and a second
action based on the same claims that were or could have been
raised in the first action. Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919
S.W.2d 644,
652
(Tex. 1996). Through its summary judgment
evidence, defendant has established that each of those elements
exists here. The claims asserted here were or could have been
raised in an earlier action brought by plaintiffs against
defendant's predecessor in interest under Cause No. 017-237464-09
in the 17th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. The
court in that case granted motions for summary judgment in favor
of the defendants there and against plaintiffs. The judgment of
the state court is entitled to preclusive effect here. Ellis v.
Amex Life Ins. Co., 211 F.3d 935,
Hogue v. Royse City,
937
(5th Cir. 2000) (citing
939 F.2d 1249, 1252
(5th Cir. 1991) (giving
res judicata effect to a summary judgment ruling)) . 3 The claims
here arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as those
raised in the earlier action. In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d
9 2 5 , 9 3 4 ( 5th Ci r . 19 9 9) .
3
A discussion of collateral estoppel is unnecessary.
5
In the alternative, defendant has established that there is
no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law that plaintiffs take nothing on their
claims in this action.
V.
Order
The court ORDERS that defendant's motion for summary
judgment be, and is hereby, granted; that plaintiffs take nothing
on their claims against defendant; and, that such claims be, and
are hereby, dismissed with prejudice.
SIGNED October 26, 2015.
/
Mc~RYDE
ited States
6
Judge
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?