Winfried Ruggia v. Washington Mutual ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-1661
    WINFRIED P. RUGGIA; EUN HUI RUGGIA,
    Plaintiffs – Appellants,
    v.
    WASHINGTON MUTUAL, a division of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.;
    JPMC   SPECIALTY    MORTGAGE,   LLC;   MORTGAGE    ELECTRONIC
    REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INCORPORATED; EQUITY TRUSTEES, LLC,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS, INCORPORATED; JOE DOE; JOHN & JANE
    DOE, Certificate Holders I-M; JACK & JILL DOE, Certificate
    Holders I-M; QUI & CHI DOE.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
    Judge. (1:09-cv-01067-LO-TRJ)
    Submitted:   August 3, 2011                 Decided:   August 11, 2011
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Christopher Edwin Brown, BROWN, BROWN & BROWN, PC, Alexandria,
    Virginia, for Appellants. John C. Lynch, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP,
    Virginia Beach, Virginia; Jonathan S. Hubbard, TROUTMAN SANDERS,
    LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Winfried      and     Eun     Hui     Ruggia    appeal        the    district
    court’s   order   granting       Defendants’       Fed.    R.     Civ.    P.    12(b)(6)
    motion    to   dismiss     their       state     law    claims     for     declaratory
    judgment, quiet title, and fraud, as well as their claim under
    the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 
    15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692
    -
    1692p (West 2009 & Supp. 2011).                We have reviewed the record and
    find no reversible error.              Accordingly, we affirm the district
    court’s order.      See Ruggia v. Washington Mutual, No. 1:09-cv-
    01067-LO-TRJ (E.D. Va. May 13, 2010); see also Horvath v. Bank
    of N.Y., N.A., 
    641 F.3d 617
     (4th Cir. 2011).                       We dispense with
    oral   argument    because       the     facts    and     legal    contentions         are
    adequately     presented    in     the    materials       before    the        court   and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1661

Filed Date: 8/11/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021