Bank of America, N.A. v. Derisme et al
| Bank of America, N.A. |
| Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems and Fabiola Derisme |
| 3:2019cv00020 |
| January 4, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Jeffrey A Meyer |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1446 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 14, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 21 Case remanded to State Court Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport. (Pesta, J.) |
Filing 20
ORDER OF REMAND TO STATE COURT. On January 10, 2019, the Court ordered this action to be remanded to the Connecticut Superior Court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Doc. #7. The matter was not immediately remanded, and defendant filed a motion for reconsideration on January 17, 2019. On January 25, 2019, the Court denied defendant's motion for reconsideration. Doc. #9. On January 25, 2019, defendant also filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and an emergency motion to stay pending determination of her appeal. Docs. #10 and #12. On January 29, 2019, the Court denied defendant's motion to stay pending appeal but granted a temporary stay until Friday, February 8, 2019, in order to allow defendant a limited amount of time to seek a stay pending appeal from the Second Circuit. Doc. #15. The Court's order provided: "In the event that the Second Circuit has not entered a stay pending appeal by that date [February 8, 2019], then the Clerk of Court shall forthwith remand this action to the Connecticut Superior Court." Ibid. After defendant promptly filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal to the Second Circuit, Circuit Judge Susan L. Carney entered the following order in relevant part: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that to the extent the motions seeks a temporary stay pending determination of the motion by a three-judge panel, the stay is DENIED. The motion is REFERRED to a three-judge motions panel." Doc. #19. In light of the expiration of this Court's temporary stay on February 8, 2019, and in the absence of a further stay having been granted by the Second Circuit, the Clerk of Court shall REMAND this action forthwith to the Connecticut Superior Court. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/14/2019. (Sokoloff-Rubin, E.)
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER of USCA: Appellant moved for an emergency stay of the district court's January 10, 2019 remand order. The USCA Ordered that to the extent the motion seeks a temporary stay pending determination of the motion by a three-judge panel, the stay is DENIED. The motion is REFERRED to a three-judge motions panel, USCA Case Number 19-257. (Pesta, J.)
|
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam Michael Swanson on behalf of Bank of America, N.A. (Swanson, Adam) |
|
Filing 16
ORDER granting #11 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/30/2019. (Gutierrez, Y.)
|
|
Filing 15
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, defendant's emergency motion for a stay pending appeal (Doc. #12 ) is DENIED. In order to allow defendant to seek a stay from the Second Circuit, the Clerk of Court shall temporarily STAY the order of remand for a period of ten days until Friday, February 8, 2019. In the event that the Second Circuit has not entered a stay pending appeal by that date, then the Clerk of Court shall forthwith remand this action to the Connecticut Superior Court. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/29/2019. (Sokoloff-Rubin, E.)
|
| Docket Entry Correction re 14 the Case was remanded to State Court in error. State Court has been notified. (Pesta, J.) |
| Filing 17 USCA Notice re: Pending Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Reis, Julia) |
| Filing 14 ENTERED IN ERROR: Case remanded to State Court Judicial District of Bridgeport. (Gutierrez, Y.) Modified on 1/29/2019 (Pesta, J.). |
| Filing 13 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE RE: INDEX AND RECORD ON APPEAL re: #10 Notice of Appeal. The attached docket sheet is hereby certified as the entire Index/Record on Appeal in this matter and electronically sent to the Court of Appeals, with the exception of any manually filed documents as noted below. Robin D. Tabora, Clerk. Documents manually filed not included in this transmission: none (Payton, R.) |
| Filing 12 EMERGENCY MOTION to Stay pending #10 Notice of Appeal by Fabiola Derisme.Responses due by 2/15/2019 (Payton, R.) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Fabiola Derisme. (Payton, R.) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 9 Order on Motion for Reconsideration by Fabiola Derisme. (Payton, R.) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Defendant has moved for reconsideration of the Court's order of remand on the ground that the Court overlooked defendant's invocation of the right to remove a state court action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1443. As to any right to removal pursuant to 1443(1), that provision has been interpreted to allow for removal only if there is a state statute or constitutional provision that prevents the party from exercising her constitutional rights in a state court proceeding. See Emigrant Savings Bank v. Elan Management Corp., 668 F.2d 671, 673-74 (2d Cir. 1982) (discussing limitations of removal pursuant to 1443 in context of a foreclosure case and explaining that removal would lie when enforcement of the petitioner's rights in a state court was barred by a state statute or constitutional provision which was applicable in terms although unconstitutional on its face, but not when the allegation was simply that in practice he would be denied or unable to enforce his rights). Here, defendant does not identify any such state law provision and complains instead of racial discrimination by the bank and judges in practice during the course of the many years of foreclosure proceedings. Such allegations do not suffice to warrant removal pursuant to 1443(1). See, e.g., Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Cantillano, 2012 WL 1193613, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (despite allegations that the lender and state court prevented [defendants] from presenting evidence showing [the lender's] fraud solely on the basis of [defendants'] race, removal not proper under 1443(1)). As to 1443(2), this provision confers a privilege of removal only upon federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights. Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824 (1966); see also Greenberg v. Veteran, 889 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1989) (applying 1443(2) to a state officer). Defendant is not a governmental officer and therefore may not remove this action pursuant to 1443(2). Accordingly, there is no basis for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1443. Moreover, even assuming a basis for removal under 1443, defendant has not shown that her removal of this action was timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). Defendant's motion for reconsideration (Doc. #8) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/25/2019. (Sokoloff-Rubin, E.)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Reconsideration and Memorandum of Law re #7 ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT by Fabiola Derisme. (Payton, R.) |
| JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Gutierrez, Y.) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT. Because the Court plainly lacks federal jurisdiction over this case and because it is apparent that the notice of removal has been filed in an effort to improperly delay state court proceedings, the Court forthwith REMANDS this action back to the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/10/2019.(Sokoloff-Rubin, E.)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO THE BAR OF THE US DISTRICT COURT OF CONNECTICUT Re: Local Rule 83.1 Admission of Attorneys. The above captioned case has been received and filed in our court. Please see our Local Rule 83.1 regarding Admission of Attorneys that is available on our website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. You will not be added to the case, nor will we accept further filings until you have complied with Local Rule 83.1. If you have any questions about this procedure, please contact the Clerk's Office. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #1 Notice of Removal filed by Fabiola Derisme, #4 Protective Order, #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #3 Electronic Filing Order. Signed by Clerk on 1/8/2019. (#1 Attachment)(Fanelle, N.) |
| Set Deadlines: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 2/18/2019. (Gutierrez, Y.) |
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/4/2019. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/4/2019. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 2
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 3/5/2019 Discovery due by 7/6/2019 Dispositive Motions due by 8/10/2019 Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/4/2018. (Fanelle, N.)
|
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Fabiola Derisme from Superior Court, case number FBT-CV-09-6003691-S, filed by Fabiola Derisme. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing fee received from Fabiola Derisme: $ 400.00, receipt number 467874. (Fanelle, N.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
