Eva Anderson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 953 F.3d 311

In 2004 Anderson executed a $207,000 deed of trust on property in Petal, Mississippi.
She has filed multiple suits (at least six) challenging the loan, the adjustable-rate rider, and the mortgage assignment; the parties settled the first suit with a broad release covering assigns.
Subsequent suits (2nd–5th) were dismissed on res judicata, lack of standing, or related grounds; the state and federal courts repeatedly rejected her claims.
In the sixth lawsuit Anderson alleged the mortgage assignment was invalid (not assigned to any trust) and asserted causes such as wire fraud, conversion, and abuse of process.
Defendants removed and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as barred by prior judgments; the district court dismissed on res judicata and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
The court also found the appeal frivolous and ordered Anderson to show cause within 14 days why she should not be sanctioned (including injunctions, fees, and damages).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars the complaint	Anderson contends the assignment is defective and raises new claims not previously decided	Defendants contend prior final judgments and the settlement release bar these claims	Court held Mississippi res judicata applies: all four identities met; claims barred
Whether the district court had diversity jurisdiction (Tohill a nominal party)	Anderson argues lack of diversity because she and trustee Tohill are Mississippi residents	Defendants argue Tohill is a nominal trustee whose citizenship can be ignored for diversity	Court held Tohill is a nominal party with no meaningful allegations against him; diversity remains intact
Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was appropriate for preclusion defenses	Anderson did not meaningfully dispute use of res judicata on motion to dismiss	Defendants relied on prior public judgments attached to the motion; argued dismissal appropriate where preclusion is apparent	Court held dismissal de novo appropriate because res judicata bar was apparent from complaint and judicially noticed records
Whether appeal is frivolous and sanctions appropriate	Anderson repeats prior arguments and asserts assignment defects	Defendants point to repeated meritless filings, prior sanctions, and delay tactics	Court held the appeal frivolous; ordered Anderson to show cause why Rule 38/inherent-power sanctions should not be imposed

Taylor v. City of Shreveport, 798 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005) (preclusion may support Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal where bar is apparent)
Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338 (5th Cir. 1994) (judicial notice of public records attached to motion to dismiss)
Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) (federal courts apply state preclusion law to state-court judgments)
Weaver v. Tex. Capital Bank N.A., 660 F.3d 900 (5th Cir. 2011) (apply law of rendering state to determine preclusive effect of state judgment)
Derr v. Swarek, 766 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2014) (summary of Mississippi res judicata identities)
Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., Inc., 891 So.2d 224 (Miss. 2005) (Mississippi formulation of res judicata identities and "nucleus of operative fact")
Wansley v. First Nat’l Bank of Vicksburg, 566 So.2d 1218 (Miss. 1990) (trustee is generally an agent with limited duties under deed of trust)
Louisiana v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 458 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 2006) (nominal-party doctrine for diversity jurisdiction)
Anderson v. Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., 136 So.3d 1080 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (prior Mississippi appellate decision finding claims barred by release/res judicata)