Opinion ID: 3164781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fraudulent Filings

Text: Appellants also argue that the district court erred in dismissing their fraudulent filings claim under Chapter 12 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The court held, in part, that “no facts [were] stated . . . that would sufficiently state, with the specificity required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any fraudulent filing,” and thus “[t]he claim should be dismissed.” Appellants do not challenge that holding. Instead, they direct all of their arguments toward an alternative ground the district court gave for its dismissal of the fraudulent filings claims: that, under Fifth Circuit law, borrowers cannot make challenges to the type of assignments at issue here. Because they have not addressed the district court’s alternative and sufficient ground for dismissal—failure to plead fraud with specificity—Appellants’ waive their right to appeal the dismissal of their fraudulent filings claim. See Capital Concepts Properties 85-1 v. Mut. First, Inc., 35 F.3d 170, 176 (5th Cir. 1994) (“issues not raised on appeal in the brief of the appellant may be considered waived, and thus cannot be noticed or entertained by the Court of 5 Case: 15-40570 Document: 00513317512 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 No. 15-40570 Appeals” (citing Matter of Texas Mortgage Servs. Corp., 761 F.2d 1068, 1073 (5th Cir. 1985))).