Case Name: Roger CONNELL; Richard Ashcroft, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C.; Does 1-50, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-02
Citations: 699 F. App'x 446
Docket Number: No. 16-20679
Parties: Roger CONNELL; Richard Ashcroft, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C.; Does 1-50, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before DAVIS, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
Roger CONNELL; Richard Ashcroft, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C.; Does 1-50, Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-20679
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed November 2, 2017
Thomas R. Ajamie, John Saul Edwards, Jr., Esq., David Schiff Siegel, Ajamie, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Michael Todd Slobin, Principal Litigation Counsel, Shellist La-zarz Slobin, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Scott Robert McLaughlin, Jackson Walker, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Sean Daniel Jordan, Jackson Walker, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees
Before DAVIS, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roger Connell and Richard Ashcroft appeal the district court's dismissal of their diversity action against Wells Fargo based on a forfeiture provision of a deferred compensation plan. The action was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" on the basis that the plan contained a North Carolina choice-of-law provision which allowed forfeiture under the terms to which the parties agreed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court granted the dismissal with prejudice, finding that the parties' choice of North Carolina law governed and that the forfeiture provision is valid and enforceable. This court has considered this appeal on the basis of the briefs,.the record, and oral argument. Having done so, we conclude that the matter should be affirmed, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. Because the district court did not err, we AFFIRM. All outstanding motions are DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.