Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51136/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51136-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America, N.A.
Appellee
Nancy L. McCurdy
Appellant
Robert L. McCurdy
Appellant
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Incorporated
Appellee
U.S. Bank, N.A.
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51136

Summary Calendar

ROBERT L. MCCURDY; NANCY L. MCCURDY,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A., as 

Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the MLMI Trust, Mortgage Loan AssetBacked Certificates, Series 2007-HE3; U.S. BANK, N.A., as Successor Trustee 

to Bank of America, N.A., as successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A., as 

Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the MLMI Trust, Mortgage Loan AssetBacked Certificates, Series 2007-HE3, by Bank of America, N.A. as attorney in 

fact, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

U.S.D.C. No. 1:14-CV-486

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 5, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-51136 Document: 00513068756 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2015
No. 14-51136

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claim for 

declaratory relief which contended that the statute of limitations in Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code § 16.035 rendered a prior foreclosure notice 

nugatory (the “§ 16.035 Claim”). Adopting the recommendations of the 

magistrate judge, the district court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ declaratory 

judgment claims, in part because “a request for declaratory relief is simply a 

remedy and not a free-standing claim.” That principle is accurate, insofar as 

pleading for declaratory relief under state law through the federal Declaratory 

Judgment Act (“DJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2201, does not confer federal question 

jurisdiction absent a well-pleaded federal claim.1 But when a federal court 

possesses diversity jurisdiction, it may consider a state-law declaratory 

judgment claim, so long as that claim presents a justiciable controversy.2 

Defendants pleaded diversity jurisdiction in the notice of removal; on its 

face, then, this case does not rest on the DJA as a basis for jurisdiction over 

the § 16.035 Claim. The district court never addressed whether it possessed 

diversity jurisdiction or the merits of the § 16.035 Claim. It also did not assess 

whether the § 16.035 Claim presents a justiciable controversy. From the 

record before us, we cannot assess these issues in the first instance. Thus, we 

conclude that these issues are best addressed in the first instance by the 

district court. Plaintiffs did not address the dismissal of their other claims, so 

we deem those matters abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–

1 See Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc., v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 666 F.3d 932, 937–

38 (5th Cir. 2012). 

2 See generally Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 239–

44 (1937); cf. Sid Richardson Carbon & Gasoline Co. v. Interenergy Res., Ltd., 99 F.3d 746, 

752 & n.3, 756–57 (5th Cir. 1996); Burney v. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., 244 

S.W.3d 900 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2008, no pet.); Juliff Gardens, L.L.C. v. Texas Comm’n on 

Envtl. Quality, 131 S.W.3d 271, 277 (Tex. App.–Austin 2004, no pet.). 

2

 

Case: 14-51136 Document: 00513068756 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2015
No. 14-51136

25 (5th Cir. 1993); FED. R. APP. P. 28. 

Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s dismissal of the § 16.035

Claim and REMAND that claim for proceedings not inconsistent with this 

opinion. We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ other claims. 

3

Case: 14-51136 Document: 00513068756 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/05/2015