IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-41286

Summary Calendar

MURALIDHARAN KRISHNAN; INDIRAGANDHI KENTHAPADI,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER 

& ENGEL, L.L.P.; GREG BERTRAND, Substitute Trustee; DEAC 

CAUFIELD, Substitute Trustee; ALISON GRANT, Substitute Trustee,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-632

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Muralidharan Krishnan and his wife, Indiragandhi Kethapadi (the 

Krishnans), appeal the dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their lawsuit 

seeking to halt the appellees’ foreclosure sale of property in Collin County, 

Texas, with which the Krishnans secured a bank loan upon which they later 

defaulted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.

 

* 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

April 2, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-41286 Document: 00514897889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2019
No. 17-41286

2

The crux of the Krishnans’ argument is that Myrtle Cox and Bubba 

Fangman, J. P. Morgan Chase (JPMC) vice presidents appointed as substitute 

trustees to sell the Collin County property, are in fact criminals who were not 

authorized to act as trustees, thus rendering any sale fraudulent. In granting 

the appellees’ motions to dismiss, the district court concluded that the 

Krishnans’ allegations of criminality were baseless and that, in any event, they 

lacked standing to challenge Cox’s and Fangman’s appointments as trustees. 

The court also rejected the Krishnans’ claims of negative credit reporting, 

discrimination, and unjust enrichment.

The Krishnans do not address the district court’s findings that they 

lacked standing to challenge Cox’s and Fangman’s trustee appointments; that 

they failed to assert an actionable claim regarding JPMC’s authority to 

foreclose on the Collin County property; that they failed to state a claim 

regarding negative credit reporting or discrimination; that there were no facts 

supporting their unjust enrichment claim; or that they were not entitled to 

partial summary judgment or a temporary restraining order. They have 

accordingly waived any such arguments on appeal. See Procter & Gamble Co. 

v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004).

Moreover, the Krishnans have abandoned their fraud claims by failing 

to adequately brief them. See Davis v. Davis, 826 F.3d 258, 266 (5th Cir. 2016). 

Their arguments to that end are largely conclusory, and they neither point to 

specific parts of the record nor cite relevant authority supporting their 

entitlement to relief. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995); 

FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Nor do they actually address the district court’s 

Rule 12(b)(6) findings. See Procter & Gamble, 376 F.3d at 499 n.1. 

Consequently, there is no basis for granting appellate relief.

 Case: 17-41286 Document: 00514897889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2019
No. 17-41286

3

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Krishnans’ 

motions to refer this case for criminal investigation or prosecution, to file a 

supplemental brief, to consolidate appeals, and to expedite the appeal are each 

DENIED.

 Case: 17-41286 Document: 00514897889 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2019