Glory Truong v. Bank of America, N.A.
717 F.3d 377
5th Cir.2013Background
- Truong, a Louisiana resident, sues BOA and Wells Fargo in a diversity action alleging LUTPA violations tied to a state foreclosure.
- Foreclosure petition (June 17, 2010) included the note, an assignment to Wells Fargo, and a Repka affidavit; writ of seizure and sale issued (June 30, 2010).
- Truong later sought HAMP modification; BOA allegedly stayed foreclosure during processing but misrepresented receipt and status of her application.
- Wells Fargo purchased the home at sheriff's sale about a year after filing the foreclosure petition; Truong alleges lack of authority because Wells Fargo was not the servicer on the bond and the Repka affidavit was unauthentic.
- Truong asserted LUTPA claims (standing, misrepresentation, and misused affidavits) and sought declaratory relief. The district court dismissed most claims under Rooker-Feldman and LUTPA exemption; this court affirms.
- The Louisiana LUTPA amendment (2006) exempted federally insured financial institutions, and the court affirms that BOA and Wells Fargo fall within this exemption; declaratory relief claim barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rooker-Feldman bars LUTPA claims? | Truong's claims are independent and do not seek to overturn the state judgment. | Claims are inextricably intertwined with the state foreclosure judgment. | Rooker-Feldman did not bar independent LUTPA claims. |
| Does LUTPA exemption apply to BOA and Wells Fargo? | Exemption should not apply to banks acting as servicer/trustee in foreclosure. | Exemption covers any federally insured financial institution, broad enough to include banks. | Yes; LUTPA liability is precluded by the exemption for federally insured financial institutions. |
| Do BOA/Wells Fargo qualify under the exemption given their roles? | Role as servicer/trustee should fall outside exemption. | Statutory text is clear and not to be read beyond its literal terms. | Exemption applies irrespective of specific roles; no exception for these actors. |
| Is Truong's declaratory judgment claim barred by res judicata? | Declaration about insufficient authentic evidence should be reviewable. | Writ seizure and sale documentation already resolved; relief would relitigate. | Yes; declaratory judgment claim barred under res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (Rooker-Feldman narrow scope; allows independent federal claims)
- Feldman v. City of New York, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine governs review of state-court judgments)
- Weaver v. Texas Capital Bank N.A., 660 F.3d 900 (5th Cir. 2011) (Guides jurisdictional analysis under Rooker-Feldman)
- McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007) (Independent claim; not enlarging Rooker-Feldman scope)