eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2023-04

Amrik Hendiazad v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • USCA4 Appeal: 21-1699      Doc: 21         Filed: 04/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1699
AMRIK HENDIAZAD; SEEMIN HENDIAZAD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,                    LLC;     MORTGAGE           ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01270-CMH-TCB)
Submitted: March 31, 2023                                         Decided: April 27, 2023
Before DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amrik Hendiazad, Seemin Hendiazad, Appellants Pro Se. John Curtis Lynch,
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Syed
Mohsin Reza, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1699      Doc: 21          Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Amrik and Seemin Hendiazad appeal the district court’s order denying their motion
to remand their case to state court following removal and granting the Defendants’ motion
to dismiss the action on res judicata grounds. We affirm.
We review de novo both a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and its denial of a motion to remand to state court. See Rockville
Cars, LLC v. City of Rockville,
    891 F.3d 141
    , 145 (4th Cir. 2018) (motion to dismiss);
Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
    709 F.3d 362
    , 366 (4th Cir. 2013) (motion to remand). We
conclude that the district court did not err in denying the Hendiazads’ motion to remand to
state court, as the complaint established federal question jurisdiction. See
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
    , 1441(a); North Carolina v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.,
    853 F.3d 140
    , 146 (4th
Cir. 2017). We also discern no reversible error in the district court’s finding that res
judicata barred the Hendiazads’ action. See Duckett v. Fuller,
    819 F.3d 740
    , 744 (4th Cir.
2016) (listing elements of res judicata).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2