Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ives v. Ocwen Federal Bank, 00-2208 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2208 Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2208 FELICIA IVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OCWEN FEDERAL BANK, FSB, a/k/a Ocwen Financial Services, Incorporated; DRAPER & GOLDBERG, P.L.L.C.; NECTAR PROJECTS; FIRST VIRGINIA FINANCIAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-1085-A) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 27, 2001 Before
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2208 FELICIA IVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OCWEN FEDERAL BANK, FSB, a/k/a Ocwen Financial Services, Incorporated; DRAPER & GOLDBERG, P.L.L.C.; NECTAR PROJECTS; FIRST VIRGINIA FINANCIAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-1085-A) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 27, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Felicia Ives, Appellant Pro Se. L. Darren Goldberg, DRAPER & GOLD- BERG, P.L.L.C., Leesburg, Virginia; Paul McCourt Curley, CANFIELD, SHAPIRO, BAER & HELLER, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Felicia Ives appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The record reveals a lack of complete diversity among the parties because Ives and three of the Defendants are Virginia residents. Further, Ives’ claims, which primarily relate to the handling of a mortgage, arise under state, rather than federal, law. Accordingly, there was no subject matter jurisdiction, and we affirm on the reasoning an- nounced from the bench. See Ives v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, No. CA-00- 1085-A (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 18, 2000, entered Aug. 21, 2000). 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 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