Ruggia v. Washington Mutual

Fourth Circuit

Ruggia v. Washington Mutual

442 F. App'x 816

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 11, 2011

DocketNo. 10-1661

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 442 F. App'x 816 (Ruggia v. Washington Mutual) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruggia v. Washington Mutual, 442 F. App'x 816 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Winfried and Eun Hui Ruggia appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss their state law claims for declaratory judgment, quiet title, and fraud, as well as their claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692-1692p (West 2009 & Supp.2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Ruggia v. Washington Mutual, 719 F.Supp.2d 642 (E.D.Va.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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Winfried and Eun Hui Ruggia appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss their state law claims for declaratory judgment, quiet title, and fraud, as well as their claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692-1692p (West 2009 & Supp.2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Ruggia v. Washington Mutual, 719 F.Supp.2d 642 (E.D.Va.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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 F. App'x 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruggia-v-washington-mutual-ca4-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack