Full Opinion

Case: 25-40213 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-40213 November 6, 2026 Summary Calendar Thomas B. Plunkett, III ____________ Clerk Virginia Alcala, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Bosco Auto Group, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-6 ______________________________ Before King, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Virginia Alcala filed suit against Bosco Auto Group (Bosco) for an alleged violation of the Truth in Lending Act pertaining to a vehicle purchase. She also alleged similar claims regarding the same vehicle purchase against Unity One Credit Union (Unity) in a separate lawsuit. In both cases, the parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge (MJ) acting as the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). See Rountree v. Dyson, 892 F.3d * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40213 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 No. 25-40213 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2018). Ultimately, in a single memorandum opinion and order, the district court granted Bosco’s and Unity’s motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and dismissed Alcala’s claims with prejudice. In this appeal, we review the dismissal of Alcala’s claims against Bosco de novo, employing the same standard for a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation modified). There must be sufficient factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). We afford her pro se pleadings and briefs liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). None of Alcala’s arguments is availing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating the claims against Bosco and Unity because the claims contained common questions of law or fact. See Dupont v. S. Pac. Co., 366 F.2d 193, 195–96 (5th Cir. 1966); Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Furthermore, the text of the Truth in Lending Act contradicts her contention that the right to rescission applies in this circumstance. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). Similarly, her res judicata argument fails because res judicata was not involved in the dismissal of the claims. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The dismissal of Alcala’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) did not violate her right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 748 F.3d 624, 631 n.5 (5th Cir. 2014). As for Alcala’s due process argument, the record demonstrates that she had “the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (internal quotations marks and 2 Case: 25-40213 Document: 50-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 No. 25-40213 citation omitted). Alcala’s contention that the magistrate judge was biased and partial against her is unavailing. See United States v. Brocato, 4 F.4th 296, 304 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v. Scroggins, 485 F.3d 824, 829 (5th Cir. 2007). Finally, Alcala fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying her post-judgment motion. See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED. 3