Court Opinion

ID: 9391007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:46.525805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:38.789249
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1699      Doc: 21         Filed: 04/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1699

        AMRIK HENDIAZAD; SEEMIN HENDIAZAD,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     v.

        OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,                    LLC;     MORTGAGE           ELECTRONIC
        REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01270-CMH-TCB)

        Submitted: March 31, 2023                                         Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Amrik Hendiazad, Seemin Hendiazad, Appellants Pro Se. John Curtis Lynch,
        TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Syed
        Mohsin Reza, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1699      Doc: 21          Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Amrik and Seemin Hendiazad appeal the district court’s order denying their motion

        to remand their case to state court following removal and granting the Defendants’ motion

        to dismiss the action on res judicata grounds. We affirm.

               We review de novo both a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss under

        Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and its denial of a motion to remand to state court. See Rockville

        Cars, LLC v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018) (motion to dismiss);

        Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 709 F.3d 362, 366 (4th Cir. 2013) (motion to remand). We

        conclude that the district court did not err in denying the Hendiazads’ motion to remand to

        state court, as the complaint established federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

        §§ 1331, 1441(a); North Carolina v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., 853 F.3d 140, 146 (4th

        Cir. 2017). We also discern no reversible error in the district court’s finding that res

        judicata barred the Hendiazads’ action. See Duckett v. Fuller, 819 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir.

        2016) (listing elements of res judicata).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     2