Alanis v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 22-50246 (5th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-50246 Document: 00516587377 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50246 Summary Calendar FILED December 22, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Nancy Alanis, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, As Trustee for The Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of October 1, 2006 Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2006-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-NC3; Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C, As Debt Collector; Mark D. Cronenwett; Richard Dwayne Danner, Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC 5:21-CV-1261 Case: 22-50246 Document: 00516587377 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 No. 22-50246 Before Jones, Stewart, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Nancy Alanis appeals the district court’s orders (1) granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and denying her motion to amend her complaint, (2) granting Defendants’ motion to declare her a vexatious litigant, and (3) denying her motion to alter the judgment. Alanis’s dismissed suit is at least her sixth in eleven years against Defendants and her second in federal court. All concern the same foreclosure dispute. The court has carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs, the record, and the opinions of the district court. Having done so, we find no reversible error of fact or law and AFFIRM for essentially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinions. Accordingly, Alanis’s numerous pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 2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.