Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Augustus Soriano v. Trustmark National Bank, 12-60097 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 12-60097 Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 22, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: Case: 12-60097 Document: 00511965955 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 22, 2012 No. 12-60097 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk AUGUSTUS P. SORIANO, Plaintiff - Appellant v. TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK; LISA PENCE MCDANIEL, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:11-CV-332 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and OWEN,
More
Case: 12-60097 Document: 00511965955 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 22, 2012 No. 12-60097 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk AUGUSTUS P. SORIANO, Plaintiff - Appellant v. TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK; LISA PENCE MCDANIEL, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:11-CV-332 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the district court is affirmed for these reasons. The district court decided that there was federal jurisdiction because plaintiff alleged that the dispute “emanated” from violation of bankruptcy rules and orders. We will accept that view of the pleading without more attention. The difficulty is that no cause of action is alleged to have occurred before the year 2008. It follows that the state’s three year statute of limitation barred * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-60097 Document: 00511965955 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2012 No. 12-60097 these claims when the complaint was filed in January of 2008. The dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds was correct. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer