Rosemary Thompson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
684 F. App'x 464
5th Cir.2017Background
- Rosemary and Timothy Thompson, proceeding pro se, sued multiple financial institutions and companies over a refinanced mortgage on their Channelview, Texas property and subsequent state-court foreclosure.
- They alleged they were not advised of new mortgage holders, were denied mortgage modifications, and that defendants engaged in fraud, conspiracy, mail/wire fraud, false statements, breach of contract, and violations of federal and Texas statutes (including TCPA and TUFTA).
- A federal district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding many claims barred, legally insufficient, or not privately actionable; the court denied leave to amend as futile.
- The district court concluded the Thompsons’ challenges to the validity of the mortgage and the state foreclosure were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that certain criminal statutes do not provide private causes of action.
- On appeal the Thompsons largely reiterated their challenges to the mortgage and foreclosure but did not meaningfully contest the district court’s Rooker-Feldman ruling or other grounds for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court may review validity of 2004 mortgage and state foreclosure | Thompsons: state foreclosure and mortgage invalid; federal relief warranted | Defendants: federal review barred by Rooker-Feldman because state court judgment is final | Affirmed: Rooker-Feldman bars federal challenge to state-court judgment (issue abandoned on appeal) |
| Whether criminal statutes or related allegations create private causes of action | Thompsons: defendants violated federal and state criminal laws giving rise to relief | Defendants: criminal statutes do not confer private civil causes of action | Affirmed: criminal statutes do not support private civil claims |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded fraud, mail/wire fraud, false statements, breach of contract adequately | Thompsons: alleged factual bases for fraud, breach, and related claims | Defendants: allegations are conclusory and insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal | Affirmed: claims dismissed for failure to plead plausible facts; conclusory assertions insufficient |
| Whether plaintiffs stated TCPA or TUFTA claims or were entitled to leave to amend | Thompsons: asserted claims under TCPA and TUFTA | Defendants: plaintiffs failed to plead required elements; amendment would be futile | Affirmed: TCPA and TUFTA claims abandoned on appeal; district court did not err in dismissing without further leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts raising claim above speculative level)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 1995) (less stringent standards for pro se litigants but duty to brief issues)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (pro se appellants must brief arguments to preserve them)
- Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (failure to brief issues constitutes abandonment)
- Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2002) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive motion to dismiss)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (holding federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments)