McDougall v. Carusone et al
| Diana Marie McDougall and Diane Marie McDougall |
| Fausto Carusone, Jessica Braus, Daniel Glass, John Doe and Jane Doe |
| 3:2022cv00206 |
| February 7, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 31 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Daniel Glass, Fausto Carusone, Jane Doe, Jessica Braus, John Doe against Diane Marie McDougall.For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms/all-forms/appeals_forms Signed by Clerk on 6/8/2022.(Gould, K.) |
| 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 (Gould, K.) |
Filing 30
ORDER granting #13 Motion to Dismiss and #26 Motion to Dismiss; denying #25 Motion Not to Dismiss. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), a case is "properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction...when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." If the plaintiff does not have standing to sue, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. And to establish standing to sue, Article III requires a plaintiff to show: (1) an injury in fact; (2) a causal connection between that injury and the conduct at issue; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defs. Of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (internal quotations omitted). Here, none of the allegations in the Complaint support a finding of injury. To demonstrate injury in fact, the plaintiff must show the violation of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. See Maddox v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., 19 F.4 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2021). Plaintiff's only allegation in support of her claim is that Defendant Glass prepared a Notice to Quit, dated January 3, 2022, and that Defendant Carusone served that Notice on the Plaintiff's home. No factual allegations are made about Defendant Braus at all. There is no protected right not to be sued for possession of real property after a duly concluded foreclosure. And there is no justiciable harm arising from the commencement of such a suit. Without any concrete harm, Plaintiff has not alleged standing, and the Court does not have jurisdiction. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, ---U.S.---, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 210 L.Ed.2d 568 (2021).Even if Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an injury in fact, she nonetheless fails to state a claim for which relief could be granted. To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "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) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When reviewing a motion to dismiss where the plaintiff is pro se, the court must construe the complaint "liberally to raise the strongest arguments it suggests." McCray v. Lee, 963 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2020) (citations, alterations and internal quotations omitted). A pro se complaint does not survive dismissal, however, unless the allegations meet the plausibility standard. See Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015). Plaintiff's allegations do not meet that standard here. As the Court previously articulated, see ECF No. 6, to the extent Plaintiff's claims allege violations of constitutional rights, those claims may only be brought against state actors. See Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 396 F.3d 178, 186 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Because the United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties, a litigant claiming that his constitutional rights have been violated must first establish that the challenged conduct constitutes state action.") (internal quotations omitted). Defendants here are two private attorneys whose firm represents a post-foreclosure owner of the Plaintiff's previously owned property and one marshal hired to serve the Notice to Quit. See Young v. Suffolk County, 705 F. Supp. 2d 183, 199 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("Private attorneys do not act under color of state law and are not state actors simply by virtue of their state-issued licenses to practice law."). See also Conn. Gen. Stat. 6-38a (2012) (A state marshal "shall have authority to provide legal execution and service of process in the counties in this stateas an independent contractor compensated on a fee for service basis") (emphasis added). Further, under Connecticut law, a state marshal cannot be held liable for the consequences of proper service of process. See R.C. Equity Group, LLC v. Zoning Com'n of Bourough of Newtown, 285 Conn. 240, 252 (2008) (citing Watson v. Watson, 9 Conn. 140, 147 (1832) ("if a writ appears to be [valid] on its face, appears to have been issued by competent authority, and has been issued with legal regularity, a [marshal] has a duty to serve it and will be protected in making such service.")). Accordingly, Plaintiff has not adequately or plausibly alleged any basis upon which she is entitled to relief. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 6/7/2022. (Bernard, Hannah)
|
| Filing 29 Notice of Additional Authority re #13 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Daniel Glass. (Glass, Daniel) |
| Filing 28 REPLY to Response to #25 MOTION Not to Dismiss this Case against the Defendants filed by Daniel Glass. (Glass, Daniel) |
| Filing 27 NOTICE by Fausto Carusone to Self-Represented Litigant Concerning Motion to Dismiss L.R. 12(a) (Burns, Joseph) |
| Filing 26 MOTION to Dismiss by Fausto Carusone.Responses due by 5/15/2022 (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support)(Burns, Joseph) |
| Filing 25 MOTION Not to Dismiss this Case against the Defendants by Diane Marie McDougall, Responses due by 5/13/2022. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 24
ORDER granting in part and denying in part #23 Motion to Add a Defendant and Provide Exhibits. To the extent Plaintiff's motion seeks to attach exhibits to her complaint, that request is GRANTED. To the extent Plaintiff's motion seeks to amend her pleadings, that request is DENIED without prejudice. The Plaintiff cannot amend her complaint by simply requesting that an additional defendant be added. Any Amended Complaint must identify all defendants, the claims asserted as to each and the factual bases for same. Motions to Amend the Pleadings must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and Local Rule 7(f). Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 4/21/2022. (Bernard, Hannah)
|
| Filing 23 MOTION to Add a Defendant and Provide Exhibits by Diane Marie McDougall. Responses due by 5/11/2022 (Oliver, T.) |
|
Filing 22
ORDER. Plaintiff's response to Defendant's #13 Motion to Dismiss was due March 28, 2022 but was not filed. In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court sua sponte extends this deadline to April 21, 2022. If the Court does not receive Plaintiff's response by April 21, 2022, it will take up the #13 Motion to Dismiss as unopposed. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 4/7/2022. (Bernard, Hannah)
|
| Answer deadline updated for Fausto Carusone to 3/30/2022. (Gould, K.) |
|
Filing 21
ORDER granting #20 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant Carusone's responsive pleading is due on or before March 30, 2022.Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 3/16/2022. (Bernard, Hannah)
|
| Filing 20 MOTION for Extension of Time until March 30, 2022 to File Responsive Pleading by Fausto Carusone. (Burns, Joseph) |
|
Filing 19
ORDER granting #18 Motion to Withdraw #17 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 3/15/2022. (Bernard, Hannah)
|
| Filing 18 MOTION to Withdraw #17 First MOTION for Extension of Time until March 30, 2022 to Plead by Fausto Carusone. (Burns, Joseph) |
| Filing 17 *WITHDRAWN* First MOTION for Extension of Time until March 30, 2022 to Plead by Fausto Carusone. (Burns, Joseph) Modified on 3/15/2022 (Gould, K.). |
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Bree Burns on behalf of Fausto Carusone (Burns, Joseph) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE by Daniel Glass NOTICE TO SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS (Glass, Daniel) |
| Filing 14 Memorandum in Support re #13 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Daniel Glass. (Glass, Daniel) |
| Filing 13 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Daniel Glass.Responses due by 3/28/2022 (Glass, Daniel) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel B. Glass on behalf of Daniel Glass (Glass, Daniel) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel B. Glass on behalf of Jessica Braus (Glass, Daniel) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER granting #8 Motion to Amend/Correct. The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the case caption to reflect Plaintiff's name as Diane McDougall.Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 2/23/2022. (Bernard, Hannah)
|
| Filing 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Diana Marie McDougall. Jessica Braus served on 2/18/2022, answer due 3/11/2022; Fausto Carusone served on 2/22/2022, answer due 3/15/2022; Daniel Glass served on 2/18/2022, answer due 3/11/2022. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Correct #1 Complaint by Diana Marie McDougall. Responses due by 3/15/2022. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 7 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Jessica Braus, Fausto Carusone, Daniel Glass* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. *Diana Marie McDougall* *444 Bedford Street, IE* *Stamford, CT 06901*. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Jessica Braus, Fausto Carusone, Daniel Glass. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER denying request for emergency injunction. See attached. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 2/9/2022. (Bernard, Hannah)
|
| 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 #4 Protective Order, #1 Complaint filed by Diana Marie McDougall, #3 Electronic Filing Order, #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines Signed by Clerk on 2/7/2022.(Freberg, B) |
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 2/7/2022.(Freberg, B)
|
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 2/7/2022.(Freberg, B)
|
|
Filing 2
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/8/2022 Discovery due by 8/9/2022 Dispositive Motions due by 9/13/2022 Signed by Clerk on 2/7/2022.(Freberg, B)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT and Request for Emergency Injunction against Jessica Braus, Fausto Carusone, Jane Doe, John Doe, Daniel Glass, filed by Diana Marie McDougall.(Freberg, B) |
| Filing fee received from Diana McDougall: $ 402, receipt number CTXN00024539 (Freberg, B) |
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.
