Agarwal v. Morris

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-11271
Summary Calendar
ANAND P. AGARWAL; URMILA AGARWAL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
RHONALD MORRIS; BETTY MORRIS, Substitute Trustee; JOHN
BAYLESS; SHIRLEY SMITH,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(94-CV-2623-P)
- - - - - - - - - -
February 15, 1999
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs-Appellants Anand and Urmila Agarwal appeal the
district court’s denial of their motions for remand of their
complaint to state court and the court’s grant of Defendant-
Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Agarwals’
claims.
They argue first that the court erred by dismissing their
claims of (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3)
wrongful acceleration and foreclosure; (4) unjust enrichment;
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
(5) conspiracy; (6) interference with contractual relations, and
myriad other claims. As a preliminary issue, we conclude that
despite the Agarwals’ imprecise notice of appeal, we have
jurisdiction to review their claims that remand was warranted. See
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 884 (5th Cir.
1998). Regarding the remand issue, however, we find no abuse of
discretion. McClelland v. Gronwaldt, 155 F.3d 507, 519 (5th Cir.
1998).
With regard to the merits of the Agarwals’ complaint, we have
reviewed de novo the record and the briefs of the parties and
conclude that the district court correctly granted summary
judgment. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons given by that
court. See Agarwal v. Morris, No. 3:94-CV-2623-P (N.D. Tex.; Jul
8, 1996, and Oct. 1, 1997).
AFFIRMED.
2