SCHAFER v. CITIBANK, N.A., 10-2043. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20110928139
Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 28, 2011
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph and Maureen Schafer appeal the district court's order granting Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims for declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duty, and quiet title, as well as their claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. 1692-1692p (West 2009 & Supp. 2011). Potential amici curiae have filed a motion to file an amici curiae brief, al
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph and Maureen Schafer appeal the district court's order granting Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims for declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duty, and quiet title, as well as their claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. 1692-1692p (West 2009 & Supp. 2011). Potential amici curiae have filed a motion to file an amici curiae brief, alo..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph and Maureen Schafer appeal the district court's order granting Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims for declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duty, and quiet title, as well as their claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692-1692p (West 2009 & Supp. 2011). Potential amici curiae have filed a motion to file an amici curiae brief, along with an amici curiae brief, and a motion to certify a question to the Supreme Court of Virginia. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant the motion to file the amici curiae brief, we deny the motion to certify a question to the Supreme Court of Virginia and affirm the district court's order. See Schafer v. Citibank, N.A., No. 1:10-cv-00010-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va. Aug. 3, 2010); see also Horvath v. Bank of N.Y., N.A., 641 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
