Case ID: f-appx_544/html/0426-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Indentured Trustee on Behalf of the Noteholders of Aegis Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-3, Mortgage Backed Notes, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Donald Anthony GAUDET, also known as Donald A. Gaudet, also known as Donald Gaudet, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30958
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 22, 2013.
    Kent Andrew Lambert, Katie L. Dysart, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., New Orleans, LA, Penny M. Daigrepont, Shapiro & Daigrepont, L.L.P., Metairie, LA, Zara Lyn Zeringue, Esq., Magee & Associates, A.P.L.C., Cov-ington, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Patrick Michael Doherty Breeden, III, Breeden Law Firm, L.L.C., Patrick D. Breeden, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant Donald Gaudet seeks to annul an in rem foreclosure proceeding that was prosecuted by Appellee U.S. Bank National Association pursuant to an executory proceeding under Louisiana law. The proceeding resulted in a judicial sale of immovable property mortgaged to U.S. Bank by Mr. Gaudet. Mr. Gaudet also seeks an award of damages and attorney’s fees for the alleged wrongful seizure and sale of that property. The district court granted U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). We review a district court’s 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo. Wampler v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 597 F.3d 741, 744 (5th Cir.2010). We affirm for the reasons given in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. In addition to those reasons, we note that we are not permitted to entertain Mr. Gaudet’s requests for us to ignore existing Louisiana civil and case law.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.