Calhoun v. Stearns Lending ( 2022 )

Case: 20-40269 Document: 00516588287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 20-40269 FILED
December 22, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Teressa R. Calhoun, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Stearns Lending, L.L.C.; Loan Care, L.L.C., also known
as LoanCare, L.L.C.; Pulte Mortgage; Pulte Group,
Incorporated, also known as PulteGroup,
Incorporated; Centex Homes; Pulte Mortgage L.L.C.;
Pulte Homes of Texas, L.P.; Pulte Homes; PGP Title,
Incorporated (PGP); Pulte; Centex; William J. Pulte;
William J. Pulte Trust,
Defendants—Appellees,
______________________________
Teressa R. Calhoun,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Stearns Lending, L.L.C.; Loancare, L.L.C., also known
as Loan Care, L.L.C.,
Defendants—Appellees.
Case: 20-40269 Document: 00516588287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2022
No. 20-40269
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-55
USDC No. 4:19-CV-88
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Teressa R. Calhoun appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). She argues that the district court incorrectly
granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss and abused its discretion when it
denied her request for leave to amend. We AFFIRM the judgment of the
district court.
This case arises out of a mortgage agreement for Calhoun’s home.
Calhoun alleged that Defendants illegally acquired her home through
foreclosure. She asserted a number of claims for predatory lending, fraud,
bad faith, dual tracking, negligence, Title VII, and unfair and deceptive
practices. The district court denied each of her claims because they were not
recognized under Texas law, time-barred, or not properly pleaded.
Calhoun’s arguments are somewhat difficult to decipher, but to the extent
that she argues that her claims should be recognized, that the district court
should have allowed her to bring them despite the expiration of the relevant
statutes of limitations, or that she adequately met the relevant pleading
standards, we disagree. The district court properly granted Defendants’
motions to dismiss.
In lieu of dismissal, Calhoun also asked the district court to grant her
leave to amend. The district court denied this request because Calhoun had
already been given four opportunities to plead, the deadline for seeking leave
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
2
Case: 20-40269 Document: 00516588287 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/22/2022
No. 20-40269
to amend had long since passed, and the district court determined that
further opportunity to amend would be futile and needlessly increase costs.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. United States ex rel. Steury v.
Cardinal Health, Inc., 625 F.3d 262, 270 (5th Cir. 2010).
For these reasons, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3