Eytalis v. Texas Association

Case: 25-10970 Document: 66-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED September 9, 2026 No. 25-10970 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Luz de Amor Eytalis, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Texas Association of Realtors, (TAR); Wichita Falls Association of Realtors, (WFAR); Paragon MLS Connect, (MLS); National Association of Realtors, (NAR), Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:24-CV-147 ______________________________ Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Luz de Amor Eytalis appeals the district court’s dismissal of her Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. She argues that the district court erred by Case: 25-10970 Document: 66-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2026

No. 25-10970 dismissing her federal antitrust claims, abused its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her related state law claims, and erred in overruling her objections to the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Eytalis has forfeited any challenge to the district court’s determination that she cannot bring a claim under the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14, by failing to brief the issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The conclusory facts alleged in Eytalis’s Third Amended Complaint are insufficient to state an antitrust injury, a necessary component of standing to bring a claim under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. See Rx Sols., Inc. v. Caremark, LLC, 164 F.4th 436, 444 (5th Cir. 2026); Harmon v. City of Arlington, 16 F.4th 1159, 1162-63 (5th Cir. 2021).

Given that Eytalis’s federal claims were properly dismissed, she has not shown that the district court abused its wide discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims. See Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797, 799 (5th Cir. 1993); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Finally, in overruling Eytalis’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions, the district court stated that it had considered her objections and conducted a de novo review of the contested portions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court was not “required to reiterate the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.” Koetting, 995 F.3d at 40.

AFFIRMED.