Opinion
21-1699
04-27-2023
AMRIK HENDIAZAD; SEEMIN HENDIAZAD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; MORTGAGE REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., ELECTRONIC Defendants-Appellees.
Amrik Hendiazad, Seemin Hendiazad, Appellants Pro Se. John Curtis Lynch, TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Syed Mohsin Reza, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 31, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01270-CMH-TCB)
Amrik Hendiazad, Seemin Hendiazad, Appellants Pro Se.
John Curtis Lynch, TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Syed Mohsin Reza, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Amrik and Seemin Hendiazad appeal the district court's order denying their motion to remand their case to state court following removal and granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the action on res judicata grounds. We affirm.
We review de novo both a district court's order granting a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and its denial of a motion to remand to state court. See Rockville Cars, LLC v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018) (motion to dismiss); Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 709 F.3d 362, 366 (4th Cir. 2013) (motion to remand). We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the Hendiazads' motion to remand to state court, as the complaint established federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a); North Carolina v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., 853 F.3d 140, 146 (4th Cir. 2017). We also discern no reversible error in the district court's finding that res judicata barred the Hendiazads' action. See Duckett v. Fuller, 819 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir. 2016) (listing elements of res judicata).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.