Bank of America, National Association v. Sorrentino et al
| Bank of America, National Association, US Bank Trust NA, Brian T. Moynihan and Thomas E. Tabor |
| Kathryn Sorrentino, Saverio Sorrentino, Kathryn M. Sorrentino, Gans and Reynolds, Saverio A. Sorrentino and Sam Sorrentino |
| 3:2022cv01152 |
| September 12, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Victor A Bolden |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 13, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| 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 (Murphy, Tatihana) |
Filing 15
ORDER denying as moot #3 Motion for New Trial; denying as moot #4 Motion for Nonsuit; denying as moot #5 Motion for Default; denying as moot #6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying #7 Motion for TRO; denying as moot #9 Motion for Order. The federal Anti-Injunction Act provides that "[a] court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. 2283. "The three excepted circumstances are (i) the express provisions of another act of Congress authorizing such an order; (ii) necessity in aid of the federal court's jurisdiction and (iii) the need to protect or effectuate the federal court's judgments." Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 916 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1990) (citing Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 28788 (1970)). These exceptions are narrowly construed. See Vendo Co. v. LektroVend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 630 (1977); Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 22829 (1972)."Courts in this Circuit have repeatedly held that the AntiInjunction Act bars a federal court from enjoining state-court eviction proceedings." Allen v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., No. 10-CV-168 (CM) (DCF), 2010 WL 1644956, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2010); see also Markey v. Ditech Fin. LLC, No. 3:15-CV-1711 (MPS), 2016 WL 5339572, at *2 (D. Conn. Sept. 22, 2016) (denying preliminary injunctive relief on the basis of the Anti-Injunction Act where plaintiff sought "stay of... summary process [eviction] action"); Watkins v. Ceasar, 88 F. App'x 458, 459 (2d Cir. 2004) (summary order) (upholding denial of motion for preliminary "injunction, in which plaintiff sought to enjoin summary eviction proceedings brought by his landlords in the Civil Court of the City of New York" under the Anti-Injunction Act); Atl. Coast Line R. Co., 398 U.S. at 297 ("Any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to finally determine the controversy.").Here, the injunction sought by Ms. Sorrentino of state court eviction proceedings is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, as it does not fall within the three exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order. In light of the above, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this state court matter and, therefore, sua sponte remands the case to the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Bridgeport. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) ("Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant."). The remaining pending motions are DENIED as moot.The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/13/2022. (Bartlett, H.)
|
| Filing 13 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 MOTION for Nonsuit filed by Kathryn Sorrentino, #2 Notice (Other) filed by Kathryn Sorrentino, #6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Kathryn Sorrentino, #7 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Kathryn Sorrentino, #8 Consent to Electronic Notice filed by Kathryn Sorrentino, #9 MOTION for to participate in electronic filing Order filed by Kathryn Sorrentino, #3 MOTION for New Trial filed by Kathryn Sorrentino, #5 MOTION for for Default for Failure to Admit Order filed by Kathryn Sorrentino, #11 Electronic Filing Order, #10 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #12 Protective Order, #1 Notice of Removal filed by Kathryn Sorrentino Signed by Clerk on 9/13/2022. (Attachments: #1 Standing order on removed cases)(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 14 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 9/12/2022.(Imbriani, Susan) |
|
Filing 12
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/12/2022.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
|
Filing 11
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/12/2022.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
|
Filing 10
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.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION by self-represented litigant to participate in electronic filing by Kathryn Sorrentino. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 8 Consent to Electronic Notice by Kathryn Sorrentino (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Kathryn Sorrentino. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Kathryn Sorrentino. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Default for Failure to Admit by Kathryn Sorrentino. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Nonsuit by Kathryn Sorrentino.Responses due by 10/3/2022 (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for New Trial by Kathryn Sorrentino. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Pending Motions by Kathryn Sorrentino (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Kathryn Sorrentino from Superior Court Judicial District of Bridgeport, filed by Kathryn Sorrentino.(Imbriani, Susan) |
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.
