Jeffreys v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company et al
| Mr. Thomas J. Jeffreys |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company and Ocwen Loan and Servicing, LLC. |
| 3:2022cv01144 |
| September 12, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Rent Lease & Ejectment |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER. The Court has received Plaintiff's Affidavit Accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. #9 ). The Court is unsure whether Plaintiff intends for this filing to be a notice of appeal of the Court's orders at ECF Nos. 6 and 8 dismissing the case and denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. If Plaintiff seeks to appeal those orders of the Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, he must file in this action a Notice of Appeal, the format for which is available in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appendix of Forms, Form 1. Any notice of appeal must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the order appealed from. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/25/2022. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, by Thomas J. Jeffreys. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER denying #7 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order at ECF No. 6, dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict. Shrader v. CSX Tansp., Inc., 70 F.3d 225, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); Local Rule 7(c) (noting that motions to reconsider will "generally be denied unless the movant can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked in the initial decision or order"). "The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 820 (1992). Plaintiff has not identified any new evidence or an intervening change of controlling law. Rather, he primarily argues that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply here because the state trial court issued a ruling and not a judgment. However, upon review of the state trial court docket for the state court housing matter from which Plaintiff seeks relief, it is clear that a judgment was entered in that case on or around September 6, 2016. See Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee v. Rachael Jeffreys and Thomas Jeffreys, Conn. Sup. Ct. No. UWY-CV09-6001830-S, Docket No. 232.00. After that date, various motions to reopen the judgment and for stays were denied, and Plaintiff's appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court was dismissed as untimely filed on April 26, 2017. The state housing court's judgment demonstrates that Plaintiff lost in the state court action from which he claims an injury. As explained in the Court's Order at ECF No. 6, this satisfies the requirements of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Ashby v. Polinsky, 328 F. Appx 20, 21 (2d Cir. 2009). The Court finds no manifest injustice in this straightforward application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. To the extent Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration raises the same substantive issues as his complaint, those are not proper grounds for reconsideration of the Court's ruling that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) ("It is well settled that [a motion for reconsideration] is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 9/27/2022. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Reconsideration, by Thomas J. Jeffreys. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Plaintiff has filed this action alleging a claim for wrongful eviction. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that, if the Court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's wrongful eviction claim and, therefore, must dismiss this action. Lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims that effectively challenge state-court judgments under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Ashby v. Polinsky, 328 F. App'x 20, 21 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)); see also Milord v. Duran, et al., No. 13-CV-5451, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146921, at *5-6 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2013) (collecting cases in eviction and foreclosure context). There are four requirements for application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine: (1) the federal court plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff complains of injuries caused by a state court judgment; (3) the plaintiff invites district court review and rejection of that judgment; and (4) the state court judgment was rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. Based on the face of the complaint, all of these elements are met here. See Ashby, 328 F. App'x at 21. First, Plaintiff lost in the applicable state court housing session matter, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee v. Rachael Jeffreys and Thomas Jeffreys, Conn. Sup. Ct. No. UWY-CV09-6001830-S, resulting in an unfavorable judgment. Second, Plaintiff seeks damages in federal court based on the injuries allegedly caused by the state court judgment. Third, Plaintiff seeks district court review and rejection of the state court's judgment. Fourth and finally, the state court judgment was rendered in 2017, prior to the initiation of this action. For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 9/13/2022. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 9/12/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 9/12/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 11/11/2022. Discovery due by 3/14/2023. Dispositive Motions due by 4/18/2023. Signed by Clerk on 9/12/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, by Thomas J. Jeffreys. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Deutsche Bank Trust Company, Ocwen Loan and Servicing, LLC., filed by Thomas J. Jeffreys. (Attachments: #1 Envelope, #2 Exhibits)(Mendez, D) |
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.
