Shiell v. Jones ( 2022 )

Case: 20-30362 Document: 00516207364 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 17, 2022
No. 20-30362
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
William Shiell, IV; Janet Marie Broussard Shiell,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Joseph G. Jones; Brian Berns; Kristina Skold Clark;
David F. Waguespack,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:19-CV-848
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
William Shiell, IV and Janet Marie Broussard Shiell appeal the district
court’s grant of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
their complaint alleging that Joseph G. Jones, Brian Berns, Kristina Skold
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-30362 Document: 00516207364 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2022
No. 20-30362
Clark, and David F. Waguespack, representatives for, employees of, or
counsel for Whitney Bank, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act through their activities involving a July 2012 collateral
note, a July 2012 collateral mortgage, and a September 2012 promissory note
(referenced hereinafter as the Alleged Forged Documents) associated with a
property located on Chardonnay Drive in Metairie, Louisiana.
Although we review a grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting
as true all well-pleaded facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of
the nonmoving party, we do not accept as true “legal conclusions, conclusory
statements, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.”
Franklin v. Regions Bank, 976 F.3d 443, 447 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal
quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). The Shiells fail to show
that the district court erred in relying upon the copies of the Alleged Forged
Documents and the subsequent forbearance agreement and amendments
thereto. See Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 763 (5th
Cir. 2011). The district court did not rely on affidavits by Berns and Jones,
as challenged by the Shiells.
For the first time before this court, the Shiells allege that the
forbearance agreement and the amendments were altered or themselves
forgeries. We decline to consider such newly raised factual allegations. See
Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 2014). The Shiells fail to
show error in the district court’s enforcement of the release of liability
provisions in the November 2013 forbearance agreement and two
amendments to bar their claims in the instant matter. See Franklin, 976 F.3d
at 447.
For the reasons articulated by the district court, the doctrine of res
judicata likewise bars the Shiells’s claims in the instant matter based on the
relevant Louisiana state court order and the federal bankruptcy court order.
2
Case: 20-30362 Document: 00516207364 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2022
No. 20-30362
See Truong v. Bank of Am., N.A., 717 F.3d 377, 388 (5th Cir. 2013); Test
Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005); In re
Chunn, 106 F.3d 1239, 1241 (5th Cir. 1997); Burguieres v. Pollingue, 843 So.
2d 1049, 1053 (La. 2003); see also Lafreniere Park Found. v. Broussard, 221
F.3d 804, 808 (5th Cir. 2000).
The Shiells’s litany of vague complaints regarding the district court’s
management of discovery and filings, as well as the timing of the court’s
ruling, fails to show that the district court abused its broad discretion in
managing its docket, acted with bias, or prevented them from submitting any
material that would affect our analysis of the issues discussed above. See
Env’t Tex. Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 968 F.3d 357, 374 (5th Cir.
2020); Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir. 2003).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The motions
filed by the defendants to strike the Shiells’s reply brief or, in the alternative,
to file a sur-reply, are DENIED.
3