### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 7

- 1 0 825 Summary Calendar

C HIN KIM

, Plaintiff

− Appell ant,

v ersus MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC R EGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant s − Appell ee s

.

* * * * *

No. 17

- 10853 Summary Calendar

CHIN KIM, Plaintiff−Appellant,

versus CRAIG MUIRHEAD, as Substitute Trustee; BUCKLEY MADOLE, P.C.; ROGER ELDARD, as Agent for Buckley Madole, P.C., Defendants−Appellees

.

* * * * *

No. 17

- 10932 Summary Calendar

CHIN KIM, Plaintiff−Appellant,

versus CONRAD CONSULTING, L.L.C., Defendant−Appellee. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 23, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10825 Document: 00514399710 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2018No. 17

- 10825 No. 17

- 10853 No. 17

- 10932

2 Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Nor thern District of Texas No. 4 :1 7

- C V

- 14 4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In regard to the foreclosure on his homestead, Chin Kim sued various

actors, claimin g a violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act, violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment, violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, fraud and
negligent misrepresentation; conversion, violation of the Fair Debt Collec tion

Practices Act , and wrongful foreclosu re. Kim sought damages and declaratory

relief.

In comprehensive Memorandum Opinion s , the district court dismissed
as to all defendants. As for Kim’s claim that he was discriminated against as

an Asian

- American, the court noted that the complaint made no more than

con clusory assertions and that, in any event, the Fair Housing Act claim is
barred by the two

- year limitations provision. Regarding the Fourteenth

Amend ment, the court observed that Kim had not identified any state action.
As for any claim of fraud or negligent misrepresentation, the court held that
Kim had not complied with the strict requirem ents of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b). And the conversion claim was barred by Texas’s two

- year

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-10825 Document: 00514399710 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2018No. 17

- 10825 No. 17

- 10853 No. 17

- 10932

3 limitations period . Kim also failed to satisfy the one

- year limitations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. As for wrongful foreclosure, the cou rt noted
that the selling price was 54% of the alleged value, which is not grossly in

adequate as a matter of law. Concerning wrongful eviction, the court rea soned
that there was no valid claim against defendant Conrad because of the court’s

dismissal of the wrongfu l foreclosure claim against other defendants.

The district court soundly analyzed the law and the facts. None of the
claims against any defendant has merit. The judgments of dismissal are
AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons convincing ly explained by the district
court in the various opinions and orders under review. Case: 17-10825 Document: 00514399710 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2018