Moskovits v. Mercedes-Benz Financial ( 2023 )

Case: 22-20522 Document: 00516940735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
____________
October 23, 2023
No. 22-20522 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Alexander Moskovits,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA, L.L.C.;
Automotive Recovery Services, Incorporated, doing
business as ADESA; Unknown State and Federal Agents,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-2260
______________________________
Before Clement, Elrod, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Alexander Moskovits appeals the dismissal of his pro se civil suit
against Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA, L.L.C. (Mercedes),
ADESA Texas Inc. d/b/a ADESA Houston’s (ADESA), Automotive
Recovery Services, Inc. (ARS), and unknown federal and state agents and the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20522 Document: 00516940735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-20522
denial of his postjudgment motion. Moskovits sought monetary damages for
what he alleged was an unlawful repossession and auction of his vehicle after
he stopped making payments to Mercedes for the purchase of the vehicle.
Moskovits first argues that the district court erred in granting
Mercedes and ADESA’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss his Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (TDTPA) claim. We
review Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo, “accepting all well-pleaded facts as
true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.”
Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 745 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). He has not shown error because he did not
adequately allege, at a minimum, a producing cause of his injury under the
TDTPA. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.50(a); Daugherty v. Jacobs,
187 S.W.3d 607, 615 (Tex. App. 2006).
Moskovits fails to meaningfully challenge the district court’s dismissal
of his remaining state and federal claims against Mercedes, ADESA, and
ARS under Rule 12(b)(6). Nor does he meaningfully challenge the district
court’s grant of ADESA’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service, the
dismissal of the unknown agents for lack of service, or the denial of his
postjudgment motion. Therefore, these claims are waived. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty.
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Moskovits’s
remaining arguments regarding the denial of his motion to compel discovery,
of his motions for summary judgment, and of his request to amend his
complaint are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
2