MTGLQ Investors v. Walden ( 2021 )

Case: 20-50944 Document: 00515944974 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 20, 2021
No. 20-50944
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
MTGLQ Investors, L.P.,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jerry K. Walden, Jr., also known as Jerry K. Walden;
Tamatha Walden,
Defendants—Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CV-992
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jerry and Tamatha Walden appeal the district court’s grant of
MTGLQ Investors’ motion for summary judgment. Because we hold that
the district court did not err in its determination, we AFFIRM.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50944 Document: 00515944974 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/20/2021
No. 20-50944
The Waldens argue that the district court erred in granting MTGLQ’s
motion for summary judgment because they had not had an opportunity to
conduct discovery. However, the Waldens did not provide enough specific,
factual information in response to MTGLQ’s motion for summary judgment
to justify delaying consideration of the motion or denying the motion in order
to allow discovery per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). “[N]on-
moving parties requesting Rule 56(d) relief ‘may not simply rely on vague
assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified,
facts.’” Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co. of Columbus v. Biles, 714 F.3d 887, 894
(5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552, 561 (5th Cir. 2010)).
We therefore reject this argument.
In addition, the Waldens assert that the district court erred in granting
the motion for summary judgment because MTGLQ was simultaneously
pursuing an expedited order for foreclosure in state court. But this argument
fails because a state court action for foreclosure under Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 736 is not a parallel proceeding. It “has no res judicata, collateral
estoppel, estoppel by judgment, or other effect in any other judicial
proceeding.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.9; accord Burciaga v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l
Tr. Co., 871 F.3d 380, 387 (5th Cir. 2017) (noting that Texas law states that a
Rule 736 action has no preclusive effect and is subject to “collateral attack”
in other courts).
Finally, the Waldens argue that the district court improperly admitted
testimony from MGTLQ’s representative. This argument is forfeited
because they failed to raise this argument to the district court. We will not
consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal and will only
consider arguments which have been presented to the district court.
Hardman v. Colvin, 820 F.3d 142, 152 (5th Cir. 2016).
2
Case: 20-50944 Document: 00515944974 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/20/2021
No. 20-50944
* * *
Because we conclude that the district court did not err in granting
MTGLQ’s motion for summary judgment, we AFFIRM.
3