IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20007

Summary Calendar

BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as successor by merger to 

LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for Certificate holders of Bear 

Stearns Asset Backed Securities I L.L.C., Asset - Backed Certificates Series 

2007- HE1, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

SHAUNE S. STAUFFER, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-2765

Before KING, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roughly six years after Shaune Stauffer defaulted on her home 

mortgage, Bank of America, N.A., brought a diversity action against her to

foreclose on the house. After Stauffer answered, Bank of America moved for 

 

* 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 27, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20007 Document: 00514530571 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2018
No. 18-20007

2

summary judgment, claiming its entitlement to judicial foreclosure as a matter 

of law. Stauffer defended, asserting Bank of America’s foreclosure claim was 

time-barred. She also asserted, among other affirmative defenses, defenses of 

failure to mitigate damages, estoppel, and waiver. The district court granted 

Bank of America’s summary judgment motion and denied all of Stauffer’s 

defenses. 

Stauffer now appeals, claiming that fact issues necessitate a trial on her 

affirmative defenses of failure to mitigate, estoppel, and waiver. (She does not 

contest that Bank of America has established the necessary elements of its 

foreclosure claim and does not re-urge her statute of limitations defense.) 

We review grants of summary judgment de novo, applying the same 

standard as the district court. United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 

814 (5th Cir. 2011). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary 

judgment on a defense is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party moving for summary 

judgment—here Bank of America—may discharge its burden “by pointing out

that the record contains no support for the non-moving party’s claim,” Stahl v. 

Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 263 (5th Cir. 2002), as it so did below. 

This shifts the burden to the non-movant, who cannot “rest upon mere 

allegations” in the pleadings, but must “identify specific evidence in the record 

and . . . articulate the precise manner in which that evidence supports his or 

her claim.” Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998). 

In this case, Stauffer failed to meet her Rule 56 burden before the district 

court. The sum total of her summary judgment briefing below on her three 

current defenses was a three-sentence paragraph with no citations to evidence 

or caselaw. Stauffer did attach an affidavit to her summary judgment motion, 

but she failed to “articulate” precisely how the affidavit supported her defenses. 

 Case: 18-20007 Document: 00514530571 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2018
No. 18-20007

3

See id. Her only claim now is that the district court should have pieced together 

the relevant assertions in her affidavit and considered unraised arguments 

that would allow her defenses to survive summary judgment. We will not 

impose that burden upon the district court or take it up ourselves. See United 

States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-48 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that failure 

to adequately brief an argument to the district court forfeits the argument).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-20007 Document: 00514530571 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2018