Emilia Diaz v. Deutsche Bank, No. 15-41372 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-41372 Document: 00513581081 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-41372 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 6, 2016 EMILIA DIAZ, Plaintiff - Appellant Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. DEUTSCHE BANK, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14-CV-121 Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Emilia Diaz sued the Defendant-Appellee Deutsche Bank in state court for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, trespass to try title, wrongful foreclosure, and promissory estoppel, ultimately seeking a declaratory judgment that the title to her Laredo, Texas, real estate is vested in her alone and that she alone is entitled to possession of the property. Deutsche Bank removed the case to federal court based on diversity. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-41372 Document: 00513581081 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2016 No. 15-41372 Deutsche Bank had previously acquired a Deed of Trust on that property and instituted foreclosure proceedings after Diaz ceased making payments on the mortgage. She alleged that she did so in an effort to obtain a loan modification under the Home Affordable Mortgage Program at the suggestion and encouragement of her mortgage services provider, SP&S, Inc. Deutsche Bank moved to dismiss Diaz’s action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal. The district court dismissed Diaz’s action and she timely filed a notice of appeal. We have now reviewed in detail the entire record on appeal, including the briefs of counsel for the parties and the record excerpts, and we have heard oral argument from those counsel further explicating their respective positions. As a result, we conclude that the district court committed no reversible error in any of its rulings. Accordingly, that court’s dismissal of this action is, in all respects, 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.
