Court Opinion

ID: 9406351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 18:00:42.196842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:29.199335
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20028        Document: 00516805989             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/30/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                  June 30, 2023
                                      No. 23-20028                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                    ____________

   Alan Crotts,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Freedom Mortgage Corporation,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:22-CV-1447
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Appellant Alan Crotts, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
   order denying his second motion to amend his pleading and its order granting
   summary judgement in favor of Appellee Freedom Mortgage Company
   (“FMC”). Crotts filed this lawsuit to enjoin the foreclosure of his home due
   to his failure to make mortgage payments. FMC filed a motion for summary

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20028      Document: 00516805989           Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/30/2023

                                     No. 23-20028

   judgment arguing that there is no dispute that Crotts defaulted on his
   mortgage payments. Because the district court properly granted summary
   judgment to FMC and properly denied Crotts’ motion for leave to file second
   amended complaint, we affirm the district court.
          The standard of review on summary judgement is de novo. Davidson
   v. Fairchild Controls Corp. 882 F.3d 180, 184. (5th Cir. 2018). The court
   should grant summary judgment when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
   material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
   R. Civ. P. 56(a). Crotts did not dispute that he defaulted on his mortgage
   payments, but instead offered only baseless arguments in response to FMC’s
   motion. Crotts first contested whether FMC is the true noteholder of his
   mortgage, yet the record reflects that FMC became the noteholder when it
   acquired the note from the original noteholder, Network Lending. Crotts also
   insisted that FMC should have emailed him a notice of default, yet FMC
   indisputably complied with Texas law when it sent him a notice of default
   and intent to accelerate via certified mail. See Tex. Prop. Code §
   51.002(b)(3). The district court thus properly granted FMC’s motion for
   summary judgement.
          The district court’s denial of Crotts’ motion to amend is reviewed for
   abuse of discretion. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th
   Cir. 2003). “The district court [had] discretion to deny motions to amend if
   they are futile . . . an amended complaint is futile if it fails to state a claim
   upon which relief may be granted.” Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate
   Athletic Ass’n, 751 F.3d 368, 379 (5th Cir. 2014). Here, the district court did
   not abuse its discretion in denying Crotts’ second motion to amend his
   complaint because the proposed amendments were futile.

                                           2
Case: 23-20028    Document: 00516805989         Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/30/2023

                                 No. 23-20028

         Because the district court properly granted FMC’s motion for
   summary judgment and properly denied Crotts’ motion for leave to amend,
   we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

                                      3