Crotts v. Freedom Mortgage Corp ( 2023 )

Case: 23-20028 Document: 00516805989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 30, 2023
No. 23-20028 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Alan Crotts,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Freedom Mortgage Corporation,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CV-1447
______________________________
Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Appellant Alan Crotts, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
order denying his second motion to amend his pleading and its order granting
summary judgement in favor of Appellee Freedom Mortgage Company
(“FMC”). Crotts filed this lawsuit to enjoin the foreclosure of his home due
to his failure to make mortgage payments. FMC filed a motion for summary
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20028 Document: 00516805989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2023
No. 23-20028
judgment arguing that there is no dispute that Crotts defaulted on his
mortgage payments. Because the district court properly granted summary
judgment to FMC and properly denied Crotts’ motion for leave to file second
amended complaint, we affirm the district court.
The standard of review on summary judgement is de novo. Davidson
v. Fairchild Controls Corp. 882 F.3d 180, 184. (5th Cir. 2018). The court
should grant summary judgment when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). Crotts did not dispute that he defaulted on his mortgage
payments, but instead offered only baseless arguments in response to FMC’s
motion. Crotts first contested whether FMC is the true noteholder of his
mortgage, yet the record reflects that FMC became the noteholder when it
acquired the note from the original noteholder, Network Lending. Crotts also
insisted that FMC should have emailed him a notice of default, yet FMC
indisputably complied with Texas law when it sent him a notice of default
and intent to accelerate via certified mail. See Tex. Prop. Code §
51.002(b)(3). The district court thus properly granted FMC’s motion for
summary judgement.
The district court’s denial of Crotts’ motion to amend is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th
Cir. 2003). “The district court [had] discretion to deny motions to amend if
they are futile . . . an amended complaint is futile if it fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.” Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate
Athletic Ass’n, 751 F.3d 368, 379 (5th Cir. 2014). Here, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Crotts’ second motion to amend his
complaint because the proposed amendments were futile.
2
Case: 23-20028 Document: 00516805989 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/30/2023
No. 23-20028
Because the district court properly granted FMC’s motion for
summary judgment and properly denied Crotts’ motion for leave to amend,
we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
3