Case Name: Nazar R. HINDO; Nada Hindo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, fka The Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2007-OH2, Mortgage Passthrough Certificates, Series 2007-OH2, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-03
Citations: 596 F. App'x 484
Docket Number: No. 14-1857
Parties: Nazar R. HINDO; Nada Hindo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, fka The Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2007-OH2, Mortgage Passthrough Certificates, Series 2007-OH2, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: BEFORE: SILER, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 596
Pages: 484–484

Head Matter:
Nazar R. HINDO; Nada Hindo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, fka The Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2007-OH2, Mortgage Passthrough Certificates, Series 2007-OH2, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-1857.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
March 3, 2015.
BEFORE: SILER, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ROGERS, Circuit Judge.
The Hindos took out a mortgage on a piece of real property in Michigan, but later defaulted. The property was sold to the Bank of New York Mellon at a sheriffs sale. New York Mellon filed an eviction action in Michigan state court and shortly afterward, the parties entered into a consent judgment granting New York Mellon possession of the property. Two months later, the Hindos sued New York Mellon in state court seeking to quiet title and alleging that the foreclosure violated various state laws. New York Mellon removed to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing that the state court consent judgment had claim preclusive effect on the new suit. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. Because the district court opinion was thorough and well-reasoned, an additional opinion by this court would be duplicative. For the reasons given in the district court's opinion, we affirm. See Hindo v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 13-, 12912, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77966 (E.D.Mich. June 9, 2014).
. At the district court, the Hindo's counsel "completely failed to present a cognizable argument to support his clients' claims." The district court encouraged the Hindo's counsel "to spend more time preparing3 filings" to "avoid such failures — and sanctions — in the future." The Hindo's counsel did not heed the district court's advice, submitting to this court word-for-word the res judicata arguments the district court criticized.