Bormio Investments, Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n , 582 F. App'x 427 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-10548      Document: 00512776880         Page: 1    Date Filed: 09/22/2014
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-10548                         United States Court of Appeals
    Summary Calendar                                Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    September 22, 2014
    BORMIO INVESTMENTS, INCORPORATED,                                          Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for CitiGroup
    Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-WFHE4, Asset-Backed Pass Through
    Certificates, Series 2007-WFHE4
    Defendant - Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:13-CV-965
    Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    In this case alleging violations of the Texas constitution arising from a
    mortgage transaction, Bormio Investments appeals from the district court’s
    final judgment granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based
    upon the statute of limitations.         The parties acknowledge our decision in
    Priester v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 
    708 F.3d 667
    , 673-74 (5th Cir.), cert.
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 14-10548     Document: 00512776880      Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/22/2014
    No. 14-10548
    denied, 
    134 S. Ct. 196
     (2013) holding that the statute of limitations for such
    claims is four years under Texas law. More than four years passed between
    the date of the alleged violations and the date the lawsuit was filed. Therefore,
    Defendant argues that Priester is dispositive and that Bormio’s appeal is
    frivolous. Defendant filed a motion seeking sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
    For its part, Bormio does not dispute that if Priester applies, the statute
    of limitations has run. Instead, it argues that the subsequent Texas Supreme
    Court case of Finance Commission of Texas v. Norwood, 
    418 S.W.3d 566
     (Tex.
    2014) demonstrates that Priester was wrongly decided. Although Norwood
    addresses the same section of the Texas constitution as the one at issue here,
    it has nothing to do with the statute of limitations. 
    Id.
     Neither party has cited,
    and we have not located, any case that would represent an intervening change
    in the law allowing us to reconsider Priester; accordingly, under our rule of
    orderliness, we are bound by Priester. See Jacobs v. Nat’ Drug Intelligence Ctr.,
    
    548 F.3d 375
     (5th Cir. 2008)(“It is a well-settled Fifth Circuit rule of orderliness
    that one panel of our court may not overturn another panel’s decision, absent
    an intervening change in the law . . . .”). The district court did not err in
    granting a summary judgment to Defendant.
    Although we caution Bormio’s attorneys not to file frivolous appeals, we
    conclude that sanctions are not warranted in this case.          Accordingly, the
    judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The motion for sanctions on
    appeal is DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-10548

Citation Numbers: 582 F. App'x 427

Judges: King, Jolly, Haynes

Filed Date: 9/22/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024