Bank of America, N.A. et al v. Garcia et al
| US Bank Trust National Association, Bank of America, N.A. and US Bank Trust, N.A. |
| Jaime Garcia and Fatima Garcia |
| 3:2021cv00313 |
| March 8, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Case remanded to State Court Judicial District of Waterbury. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 7
ORDER OF SUMMARY REMAND. On March 8, 2021, the self-represented Defendant, Jaime Garcia (the "Defendant"), removed this action from the Connecticut Superior Court. See Bank of America, N.A. v. Garcia, Jaime et al., No. UWY-CV16-6031071-S. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action and because removal is untimely, the Court sua sponte remands this matter to the Superior Court for the reasons set forth below. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over only matters in which a federal question is raised or there is diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332. Federal question jurisdiction exists where the action "aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 1331. "[A] suit 'arises under' federal law 'only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].'" Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (quoting Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)). Diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Here, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction. The underlying complaint sounds only in foreclosure, and "it is well settled that judgments of foreclosure... are fundamentally matters of state law." Muong v. Fed. Nat. Mortgage Ass'n, No. 13-cv-06564 (KAM), 2013 WL 6667374, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2013) (collecting cases). While the Defendant purports to assert civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C 1983, other federal statutes, and various Constitutional provisions arising from the Plaintiff's alleged actions and misconduct in connection with the foreclosure proceedings, federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on the Defendant's actual or anticipated defenses or counterclaims in those proceedings. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Nor is this case removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Even accepting the Defendant's representation that the parties are diverse, "[a] state court case is not removable... based solely on diversity jurisdiction if any defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought." Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. White, No. 3:17-cv-00858 (VAB), 2018 WL 650372, at *2 (D. Conn. Jan. 31, 2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2)). Here, the case was commenced against the Defendant in Connecticut Superior Court, and the Defendant is a citizen of the state of Connecticut. Additionally, a notice of removal generally must "be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant... of a copy of the initial pleading... or within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant... whichever period is shorter." 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(1). That the state court action was filed in 2016 therefore renders the Defendant's notice of removal untimely. See U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Berkowska, No. 3:12-cv-597 (JBA), 2013 WL 12303038, at *1 (D. Conn. Jan. 3, 2013) ("[T]he statutory time limit is mandatory and absent a finding of waiver or estoppel, federal courts rigorously enforce the statute's thirty-day filing requirement.") (quotation marks and citation omitted). And even in those circumstances where a later removal period is contemplated, see 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3), a case is not, save for special circumstances not present here, removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the action is filed in state court, see id. 1446(c)(1). Again, this foreclosure action was filed in 2016. Lastly, the Court takes judicial notice of the foreclosure proceedings in the Superior Court, Bank of America, N.A. v. Garcia, Jaime et al., No. UWY-CV16-6031071-S, and the associated appeal in the Appellate Court, Bank of America, N.A. v. Jaime Garcia et al., A.C. No. 43266. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc., 969 F.2d 1384, 1388 (2d Cir. 1992) (The Court may take judicial notice of [documents] filed in another court not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings. (citing Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir. 1991))). It is not clear to the Court that this matter remains a live case or controversy insofar as the foreclosure case has gone to judgment; the law day has passed; title to the property at issue vested in the Plaintiff on August 9, 2019 and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as moot. Accordingly, this matter is remanded back to the Connecticut Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury at Waterbury. Royal Ins. Co. v. Jones, 76 F. Supp. 2d 202, 204 (D. Conn. 1999) ("[A] court lacking subject matter jurisdiction over a removed action must remand that action to state court sua sponte or on motion."); see United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) (recognizing that lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte by the Court and that "[w]here jurisdiction is lacking... dismissal is mandatory"). The Clerk of the Court is directed to: (1) remand this matter to the Connecticut Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury at Waterbury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), and (2) close this case. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 3/11/2021. (D'Amato, Joseph)
|
|
Filing 6
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 03/8/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 03/8/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 5/7/2021. Discovery due by 9/7/2021. Dispositive Motions due by 10/12/2021. Signed by Clerk on 03/8/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 3 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. Signed by Clerk on 03/8/2021.(Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jaime Garcia. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Jaime Garcia from Superior Court, Waterbury, case number UWY-CV-16-6031071-S, filed by Jaime Garcia. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Fazekas, J.) Modified on 3/10/2021 to edit text to reflex case is Notice of Removal (Fazekas, J.). |
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.
