Arnold Schroeder, Jr. v. Kern Wildenthal, et al, No. 11-11241 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-11241 Document: 00512156128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED February 26, 2013 No. 11-11241 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ARNOLD LEON SCHROEDER, JR., Plaintiff Appellant, v. KERN WILDENTHAL; EDWARD A. COPLEY; HARRY S. PARKER, III; BARBARA WIESSNER CHARLTON, Executor of the Estate of George Charlton; IRVIN LEVY; THE DALLAS MUSEUM OF ART, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:11-CV-525 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons: 1. Schroeder asserted claims for constructive fraud against each defendant but failed to state a cognizable claim for relief under Texas law. We agree with the district court that Schroeder did not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate the existence of any legal or equitable duty owed by the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-11241 Document: 00512156128 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2013 No. 11-11241 defendants that would give rise to such a claim. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Schroeder leave to amend his complaint. Schroeder had already filed an amended complaint as a matter of right, and we agree with the district court that further amendment would be futile. 2. Schroeder also argued that the defendants are liable through theories of civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting, and he requested an accounting of property and imposition of a constructive trust. These claims rise and fall with his constructive fraud claim and, accordingly, were properly dismissed by the district court. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.