LIT COMMENTARY
In re Jeanbaptiste Wrongful Foreclosure Lawsuit “that (5th Circuit) Panel Went too Far”
The Magistrate Judge, notable for authoring the opinion that relied on an uncertain interpretation of Erie doctrine, not only favored Wells Fargo, enabling the bank to evade potentially millions in damages, but also imposed an additional burden on Baptiste. This included awarding $26,000 in attorney fees to counsel, including Locke Lord. Notably, this Magistrate Judge, Irma Carrillo Ramirez, has recently ascended to the Fifth Circuit, becoming the first Latina appointed as a Circuit Judge in Louisiana.
Check back for updates and subscribe to our free newsletter, delivered direct to your inbox.
Texas State Law Controls Property Law, Not Federal Erie Guesses. https://t.co/typ9jIPPVb https://t.co/V03OFlK7P6 pic.twitter.com/OTdvRdZ56H
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) March 16, 2024
Sheet Pile v. Plymouth Tube (Pub.)
APR 3, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: APR 4, 2024
Before Willett, Wilson, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge:
…the Texas Supreme Court has not held that the discovery rule is categorically inapplicable to breach-of-contract injuries…
Hire Branch M. Sheppard of Galloway Law Firm, a Texas Creditor Rights Lawyer Who Actively Pursues Residential Home Foreclosures for Wall St. Banks, Mortgage Servicers and Investors in Harris County to STOP FORECLOSURE so you KEEP YOUR HOME from his Clients: Lenders and Non Banks. pic.twitter.com/7NwtNLE9lf
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) March 29, 2024
Jeanbaptiste v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., No. 14-10671
(5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014)
Before PRADO, OWEN (AKA RICHMAN AKA MRS. HECHT), and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*
Sharleen Jeanbaptiste challenges the district court’s grant of Wells Fargo Bank’s (Wells Fargo) motion to dismiss on the grounds that:
(1) her claims are not time-barred;
(2) she was not granted an opportunity to amend her complaint;
and
(3) she stated claims upon which relief could be granted.
As her claims are barred by statutes of limitation, we affirm.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
I
Jeanbaptiste bought a home during the summer of 2000 with a mortgage loan. Wells Fargo later became the mortgage servicer on the loan. After Jeanbaptiste began struggling financially, she and the bank entered into two successive loan modification agreements; she continued to make payments during this time.
In 2008, Wells Fargo informed her that it was unable modify the loan a third time and advised her to contact the bank to “discuss [her] options.”
In December of that year, she temporarily moved to Louisiana “to care for her terminally-ill mother” and, while there, continued efforts to modify her loan. Despite these efforts, in June of 2009, Wells Fargo foreclosed on Jeanbaptiste’s home.
In October, a friend who “happened to be driving by and observed someone removing items from the residence . . . immediately contacted Ms. Jeanbaptiste to inform her.”
Two years later, in December of 2011, she received notification from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve that it was reviewing whether Wells Fargo had improperly foreclosed on her home.
She filed suit in state court against Wells Fargo on December 18, 2013, alleging breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, civil theft under the Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA),1 and conversion.
Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because Jeanbaptiste’s complaint was time-barred and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The district judge adopted these recommendations, and we now affirm on grounds that the claims are barred under the relevant statutes of limitation.
1 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODES ANN. § 134.003, .005 (West 2013).
II
We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).2 We accept “all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”3
A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply appropriate state law, including state statutes of limitation, to resolve a dispute.4
To determine state law, a federal court “look[s] to the final decisions of the state’s highest court.”5
Where no such precedent is available, a federal court must employ state methodology to make an “Erie guess” to “determine, in its best judgment, how the highest court of the state would resolve the issue if presented with the same case.”6
It is undisputed that Texas law applies in this case.
III
In Texas, under the “injury rule,” unless an exception applies, “a cause of action generally accrues when a wrongful act causes a legal injury regardless of when the plaintiff discovers the injury or if all resulting damages have not yet occurred.”7
A four-year statute of limitations applies to breach of contract8
2 In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007).
3 Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
4 Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 111 (1945); Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-79 (1938).
5 Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., 739 F.3d 848, 856 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Canal Indem. Co., 352 F.3d 254, 260 (5th Cir. 2003)).
6 Id.
7 Holland v. Thompson, 338 S.W.3d 586, 593 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, pet. denied)
(citing Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 36 (Tex. 1998)).
8 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.004 (West 2013).
and wrongful foreclosure9 claims.
A two-year limitations period applies to conversion10 and TTLA11 claims.
Thus, as Jeanbaptiste’s injuries occurred at the latest in June of 2009, when Wells Fargo foreclosed, and she did not bring her claim until December of 2013, all of her claims are time-barred.
Jeanbaptiste nevertheless contends that the “discovery rule,” a narrow exception to the injury rule, tolled the statute of limitations such that her suit can move forward. We disagree.
The discovery rule exception applies only if:
the nature of the plaintiff’s injury is both inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable.
An injury is inherently undiscoverable if it is, by its nature, unlikely to be discovered within the prescribed limitations period despite due diligence.
“Inherently discoverable” does not mean that a particular plaintiff did not discover his or her particular injury within the applicable limitations period. Instead, we determine whether an injury is inherently undiscoverable on a categorical basis because such an approach brings predictability and consistency to the jurisprudence.12
The discovery rule does not apply to breach of contract13 or conversion14 claims.
While the Supreme Court of Texas has not yet addressed the application of the discovery rule to wrongful foreclosure and TTLA claims, Texas courts of appeal
9 Gonzales v. Lockwood Lumber Co., 668 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th dist.] 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (citing Int’l Printing Pressmen and Assistants’ Union of N. Am. v. Smith, 198 S.W.2d 729, 735 (Tex. 1946)).
10 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 16.003(a).
11 Id. § 134.003, .005; see Howard v. Sony Music BMG Entm’t, 293 F. App’x 350, 352 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
12 Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732, 734 (Tex. 2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Priester v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 708 F.3d 667, 675 (5th Cir. 2013).
13 Via Net v. TIG Ins. Co., 211 S.W.3d 310, 315 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam).
14 Rogers v. Ricane Enters., Inc., 930 S.W.2d 157, 167 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996, writ denied), cited with approval in HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881, 888 (Tex. 1998).
have uniformly refused to apply the discovery rule to them.15 Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Jeanbaptiste’s suit with prejudice because her claims are time-barred.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
15 E.g., Trunkhill Capital, Inc. v. Jansma, 905 S.W.2d 464, 468 (Tex. App.–—Waco 1995, writ denied)
(“The creditor’s cause of action for any deficiency exists on the date of foreclosure.”);
Nabelek v. Bradford, No. 14-01-00240-CV, 2002 WL 1438662, at *3 & n.3, *5 (Tex. App.–—Houston Aug. 22, 2002)
(“While it is perhaps probable that a reasonably diligent person whose property had been seized would not know of his injury as of [the date of seizure], we cannot say that he would continue to remain unaware of that failure for a period of two years thereafter.”);
see also Howard v. Sony BMG Music Entm’t, No. H-06-3133-CV, 2007 WL 2537865, at *3-4 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2007), aff’d, 293 F. App’x 350 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
$26k in attorney fees awarded to Locke Lord by former MJ Ramirez, now a Circuit Judge.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:14-cv-00264-K-BH
Jeanbaptiste v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Assigned to: Judge Ed Kinkeade Referred to: Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez Demand: $200,000
Cause: 28:1441 Notice of Removal |
Date Filed: 01/23/2014 Date Terminated: 05/22/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
Plaintiff | ||
Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste | represented by | Alex L Davis , III A-Davis Firm PC 2626 Cole Avenue Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 214-450-6447 Fax: 214-481-1271 Email: adavis@a-dfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
V. | ||
Defendant | ||
Wells Fargo Bank NA | represented by | Jeffrey B Mead Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Ave Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75210 214-740-8678 Fax: 214-756-8678 Email: jmead@lockelord.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJason L Sanders Sanders Collins PLLC 6301 Gaston Ave Suite 1121 Dallas, TX 75214 214-894-9981 Fax: 214-242-3004 Email: jsanders@sanderscollins.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert T Mowrey Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 214-740-8000 Fax: 214-740-8800 Email: rmowrey@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
---|---|---|
01/23/2014 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, case number DC-13-14827 filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Filing fee $400; receipt number 0539-5808430) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas should seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information – Bar Membership (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B – B-2, # 3 Exhibit(s) B-3 – B-5, # 4 Exhibit(s) C) (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/23/2014) |
01/23/2014 | 2 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/23/2014) |
01/23/2014 | 3 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. identifying Corporate Parent/Other Affiliate Wells Fargo & Company for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/23/2014) |
01/23/2014 | 4 | New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. File to Judge Ramirez. CASREF case referral set and case referred to Magistrate Judge Ramirez (see Special Order 3). Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Ramirez). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt) (Entered: 01/23/2014) |
01/30/2014 | 5 | MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief In Support Thereof filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Proposed Order) (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/30/2014) |
01/31/2014 | 6 | First MOTION to Remand filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 01/31/2014) |
01/31/2014 | 7 | Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re 6 First MOTION to Remand (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 01/31/2014) |
02/03/2014 | 8 | ORDER re: 5 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief in Support Thereof. Respondent may file a response by 2/20/2014. Movant may file a reply by 3/6/2014. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 2/3/2014) (mcrd) (Entered: 02/03/2014) |
02/04/2014 | 9 | ORDER re: 6 Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand. Respondent may file a response by 2/21/2014. Movant may file a reply by 3/7/2014. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 2/4/2014) (mcrd) (Entered: 02/04/2014) |
02/17/2014 | 10 | RESPONSE filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re: 5 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief In Support Thereof (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B) (Davis, Alex) Modified text on 2/18/2014 (jrr). (Entered: 02/17/2014) |
02/21/2014 | 11 | RESPONSE filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA re: 6 First MOTION to Remand (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/21/2014) |
03/05/2014 | 12 | Sur-reply filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re: 6 First MOTION to Remand (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B) (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 03/05/2014) |
03/06/2014 | 13 | REPLY filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA re: 5 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief In Support Thereof (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/06/2014) |
04/30/2014 | 14 | Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation re: 5 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief in Support Thereof; and 6 Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand. Plaintiff’s motion to remand should be DENIED, Defendants motion to dismiss should be GRANTED, and all of Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 4/30/2014) (mcrd) (Entered: 04/30/2014) |
05/09/2014 | 15 | OBJECTION filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re: 14 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 5 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA, 6 Motion to Remand filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Exhibit(s), # 4 Exhibit(s), # 5 Exhibit(s), # 6 Exhibit(s)) (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 05/09/2014) |
05/22/2014 | 16 | Order Accepting 14 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand, filed 1/31/2014 (doc. 6 ), is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief in Support Thereof, filed 1/30/2014 (doc. 5 ), is GRANTED. By separate judgment, all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant will be DISMISSED with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 5/22/2014) (axm) (Entered: 05/23/2014) |
05/22/2014 | 17 | JUDGMENT: Plaintiff’ Motion for Remand (doc. 6 ), is DENIED, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Brief in Support Thereof(doc. 5 ), is GRANTED, all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are DISMISSED with prejudice. The taxable costs of court, as calculated by the clerk of court, are assessed against Plaintiff. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 5/22/2014) (axm) (Entered: 05/23/2014) |
06/05/2014 | 18 | MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Sanders, Jason) (Entered: 06/05/2014) |
06/05/2014 | 19 | Appendix in Support filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA re 18 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A – Note, # 2 Exhibit(s) B – Deed of Trust, # 3 Exhibit(s) C – Declaration of Robert T. Mowrey, # 4 Exhibit(s) C-1 – Invoices (Filed Under Seal)) (Sanders, Jason) (Entered: 06/05/2014) |
06/05/2014 | 20 | MOTION for Protective Order filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Sanders, Jason) (Entered: 06/05/2014) |
06/05/2014 | 22 | BILL OF COSTS by Wells Fargo Bank NA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A – Filing Fee Receipt) (Sanders, Jason) (Entered: 06/05/2014) |
06/06/2014 | 23 | ORDER re: 18 Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs and Brief in Support; 20 Motion for Entry of Protective Order Under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d); and 21 Motion for Leave to File Invoices Under Seal. Respondent may file a response by 6/26/2014. Movant may file a reply by 7/10/2014. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 6/6/2014) (mcrd) (Entered: 06/06/2014) |
06/11/2014 | 24 | NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Fifth Circuit as to 16 Order Accepting/Adopting Findings and Recommendations, 17 Judgment, by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste. Filing fee $505, receipt number 0539-6095168. T.O. form to appellant electronically at Transcript Order Form or US Mail as appropriate. Copy of NOA to be sent US Mail to parties not electronically noticed. (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 06/11/2014) |
06/19/2014 | 25 | Costs Taxed in amount of $400.00 against Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste. (ctf) (Entered: 06/19/2014) |
06/25/2014 | 26 | REPLY filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re: 18 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)) (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 06/25/2014) |
06/25/2014 | 27 | REPLY filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste re: 20 MOTION for Protective Order (Davis, Alex) (Entered: 06/25/2014) |
07/10/2014 | 28 | REPLY filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA re: 18 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2014) |
07/10/2014 | 29 | REPLY filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA re: 20 MOTION for Protective Order (Mead, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2014) |
11/04/2014 | 30 | Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation re: 18 Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Brief in Support; 20 Motion for Entry of Protective Order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d); and 21 Motion for Leave to File Invoices Under Seal. Defendant’s motion for a protective order under Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) and motion for leave to file its billing invoices under seal are DENIED. Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs should be GRANTED, and it should be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $26,008.50, and costs in the amount of $162.28. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 11/4/2014) (mcrd) (Entered: 11/05/2014) |
12/01/2014 | 31 | ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 30 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 20 Motion for Protective Order filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA, 21 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Motion filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA, 18 Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA. For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Brief in Support, filed 6/5/2014 (doc. 18) is GRANTED. The defendant is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $26,008.50, and costs in the amount of $162.28. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 12/1/2014) (tla) (Entered: 12/02/2014) |
12/05/2014 | 32 | Opinion of USCA in accordance with USCA judgment re 24 Notice of Appeal, filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste. (svc) (Entered: 12/09/2014) |
12/05/2014 | 33 | JUDGMENT/MANDATE of USCA as to 24 Notice of Appeal, filed by Sharleen O Jeanbaptiste. Judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Issued as Mandate: 12/2/14. (svc) (Entered: 12/09/2014) |
PACER Service Center | |||
---|---|---|---|
Transaction Receipt | |||
04/04/2024 06:05:55 |