Court Opinion

ID: 9899995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 01:00:34.952211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:58.364376
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50143         Document: 00516973031             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/17/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50143
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              November 17, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Robert K. Hudnall; Sharon Elias Hudnall,                                            Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                             versus

   Ty Smith, Individually and as agent for Smith and Ramirez Restoration,
   L.L.C.; Alejandro C. Ramirez, Individually and agent for Smith and
   Ramirez Restoration L.L.C.; Smith and Ramirez Restoration,
   L.L.C.,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 3:21-CV-106
                      ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Robert K. Hudnall and Sharon Elias Hudnall filed suit against Ty
   Smith, Alejandro C. Ramirez, and Smith and Ramirez Restoration, L.L.C.
   (collectively, the Defendants), asserting claims of breach of contract, fraud,

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50143      Document: 00516973031           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                     No. 23-50143

   fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, and promissory
   estoppel (collectively, the “Contract Claims”) and claims under the federal
   Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The district
   court dismissed the Hudnalls’ Contract Claims for lack of subject matter
   jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
   dismissed their RICO claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
   12(c). The Hudnalls now appeal.
          As an initial matter, we observe that we have jurisdiction over this
   appeal, as the Hudnalls filed a document clearly evincing their intent to
   appeal within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Appellate
   Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).
   We also disagree with the Hudnalls’ assertion that their complaint was
   improperly removed to federal court. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482
   U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Baldwin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 667 F.2d 458, 460 (5th
   Cir. 1982).
          De novo review applies to a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal, and the district
   court properly dismissed the Contract Claims for lack of subject matter
   jurisdiction because they were subject to binding arbitration. See Gilbert v.
   Donahoe, 751 F.3d 303, 306-07 (5th Cir. 2014). However, we modify the
   judgment to reflect that the Contract Claims are dismissed without prejudice.
   See Csorba v. Varo, Inc., 58 F.3d 636, 636 n.2 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished but
   precedential per 5th Cir. R. 47.5.3).
          We also review Rule 12(c) dismissals de novo, using the same standard
   that applies to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Q Clothier New Orleans,
   L.L.C. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 29 F.4th 252, 256 (5th Cir. 2022). The
   district court did not err in dismissing the Hudnalls’ RICO claims, as, at a
   minimum, they have failed to plead the elements of the asserted predicate
   offenses as required to state a RICO claim. See Elliott v. Foufas, 867 F.2d 877,

                                          2
Case: 23-50143      Document: 00516973031           Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                     No. 23-50143

   880 (5th Cir. 1989). We also disagree with the Hudnalls’ assertion that the
   district court reversibly erred in failing to conduct a hearing on their claims,
   as they have not explained what additional information they would have
   presented at a hearing that was not presented in their multiple filings in the
   district court. See Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009).
   The Hudnalls have abandoned, by failing to adequately brief, any argument
   that the failure to hold hearings violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
   and the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act. See Yohey v. Collins,
   985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
          In light of the foregoing, we MODIFY the district court’s judgment
   to reflect dismissal without prejudice of the Hudnalls’ claims of breach of
   contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, and
   promissory estoppel against the Defendants.                We AFFIRM AS
   MODIFIED.

                                          3