Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Barbranda Walls

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1087
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BARBRANDA WALLS,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 13-1365
WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BARBRANDA WALLS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00664-LMB-IDD)
Submitted: September 5, 2013 Decided: October 22, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harry T. Spikes, Sr., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Alison
W. Feehan, Craig B. Young, KUTAK ROCK, LLP, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. brought this lawsuit against
Barbranda Walls to determine her liability under a promissory
note. In separate orders, the district court (1) granted Wells
Fargo’s motion for summary judgment, (2) denied Walls’
subsequent motion to extend discovery and to extend the time to
file a written opposition to the summary judgment motion, (3)
denied Walls’ motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment
order, and (4) granted Wells Fargo’s motion for attorneys’ fees
and costs. Walls now appeals the summary judgment and these
orders. See J.A. 312, 374 (notices of appeal). We affirm.
Regarding Wells Fargo’s summary judgment motion, the
district court noted that despite being given proper notice,
Walls failed to respond to the motion. Moreover, the court noted
that Walls had also failed to respond to several requests for
admissions and other discovery requests propounded by Wells
Fargo. In light of Walls’ failure to respond to the requests for
admissions, the court deemed the proposed admissions admitted
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36, and it consequently found that there
were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The court
explained that the undisputed facts establish the existence of
the promissory note and debt owed by Walls, and it noted that
“Walls does not contest that she failed to make timely payments
3
on the Note since June 2008.” J.A. 209. For these reasons, the
court granted summary judgment in Wells Fargo’s favor.
On the same day that the district court ruled on the
summary judgment motion, but after the court had entered its
order, Walls moved to extend discovery and to extend the time to
respond to the summary judgment motion. The court denied the
motion, explaining: “Walls did not offer any reasonable
explanation for her failure to file initial discovery
disclosures or to respond in any respect to plaintiff’s various
discovery requests, including a request for admissions.” J.A.
216.
Walls then moved for reconsideration of the summary
judgment order. The district court denied this motion, noting
again that Walls “still fail[ed] to offer any reasonable
explanation for her failure to timely file discovery disclosures
or responses to discovery requests.” J.A. 225.
After prevailing on its summary judgment motion, Wells
Fargo moved for attorneys’ fees and costs. In a lengthy
memorandum opinion and accompanying order, see J.A. 354-373, the
district court found that the loan documents signed by Walls
provide a contractual foundation for Wells Fargo’s request, and
it then considered the request under Barber v. Kimbrell’s, Inc.,
577 F.2d 216 (4th Cir. 1978), which establishes a multi-factor
analysis for assessing the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees.
4
The court explained in detail its analysis of the fee request.
Among many other things, the court noted that Walls’ position on
the request for fees and costs “is meritless,” and it observed
that “the record reflects that [her] unreasonably litigious
conduct has magnified the costs of litigation in this District
and elsewhere by complicating what would otherwise have been a
standard mortgage default case.” J.A. 362-63. Ultimately, the
court found that Wells Fargo was entitled to reimbursement of
fees and costs in the amount of $251,624.08.
On appeal, Walls raises numerous issues. We have carefully
reviewed her arguments and the challenged orders in light of the
appropriate legal standards. See generally Greater Baltimore
Ctr. for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, 721 F.3d 264, 283 (4th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (summary
judgment); Southern Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc.
v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 186 (4th Cir.
2013) (attorneys’ fees); Nader v. Blair, 549 F.3d 953, 958-59
(4th Cir. 2008) (extension of discovery). In our view, the
district court correctly granted summary judgment in Wells
Fargo’s favor based on the record presented, and it did not
abuse its discretion in denying Walls’ post-summary judgment
motions and awarding Wells Fargo its fees and costs. Walls has
failed to establish any basis to warrant setting aside the
orders or the judgment.
5
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
6