Bey v. Epstein et al
| Torr Bey |
| Juda J. Epstein and Law Office of Juda J. Epstein |
| 3:2021cv00953 |
| July 9, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Real Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 26, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 Case remanded to State Court Judicial District of Fairfield. (Nuzzi, Tiffany) |
Filing 7
ORDER OF SUMMARY REMAND. On July 9, 2021, the self-represented Plaintiff, Torr Bey ("Bey"), filed a "Notice of Removal" in this Court. (ECF No. 1). Although captioned as a lawsuit brought by Bey against Juda J. Epstein, among others, the Court construes Bey's action as an attempt to remove the Connecticut Superior Court action captioned, Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, LTD v. Moss, Yvonne Dawn, Heir and/or Beneficiary of The, et al., No. FBT-CV16-6059551-S, to this Court. Indeed, Bey filed two notices of removal on the state court docket. However, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and because removal is untimely and otherwise deficient, the Court sua sponte remands this matter to the Superior Court for the reasons set forth below. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only over 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-6564 (KAM), 2013 WL 6667374, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2013) (collecting cases). While Bey asserts that there have been violations against his civil and constitutional rights (presumably, federal) in the underlying foreclosure action, federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on Bey's actual or anticipated defenses or counterclaims in those proceedings. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Furthermore, though not asserted by Bey in the Notice of Removal, diversity jurisdiction is also lacking. A case may not be removed to federal court if the "defendant[ ] is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2); accord Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. White, No. 3:17-cv-00858 (VAB), 2018 WL 650372, at *2 (D. Conn. Jan. 31, 2018) ("A state court case is not removable, however, based solely on diversity jurisdiction if any defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought."); U.S. Bank Tr., N.A. for Wells Fargo Asset Sec. Corp. v. Walbert, No. 3:17-cv-00991 (CSH), 2017 WL 3578553, at *3 (D. Conn. Aug. 18, 2017) ("Because Defendant appears to be a citizen of Connecticut, and has not alleged that he is a citizen of any other state, and Connecticut is the state in which the civil action is brought, the foreclosure action is not removable."). Here, the case was commenced against Bey in Connecticut Superior Court, and Bey 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 Bey'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. Moreover, it appears that Bey did not obtain consent for the removal from all defendants in the foreclosure action. See id. 1446(b)(2)(A) ("[A]ll defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action."). Accordingly, this matter is remanded back to the Connecticut Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport. 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 Fairfield at Bridgeport, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), and (2) close this case. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 7/14/2021. (D'Amato, Joseph)
|
| Filing 6 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 #3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #5 Standing Protective Order, #2 Notice of Judicial Challenge with Affidavit filed by Torr Bey, #1 Notice of Removal filed by Torr Bey, #4 Electronic Filing Order Signed by Clerk on 07/12/2021. (Attachments: #1 Removal Standing Order)(Fazekas, J.) |
|
Filing 5
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 07/9/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 07/9/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 9/7/2021. Discovery due by 1/8/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 2/12/2022. Signed by Clerk on 07/9/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Jurisdictional Challenge with Affidavit by Torr Bey, (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Torr Bey from Superior Court, Bridgeport, case number FBT-CV16-6059551-S., filed by Torr Bey. (Attachments: #1 Complaint)(Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing fee received from Torr Bey: $402.00, receipt number 467961. (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.
