Raymond C. Green Funding, LLC et al v. Ocean Development Precinct I, LLC et al
| Raymond C. Green Funding, LLC and Raymond C. Green Inc. |
| Ocean Development Precinct I, LLC, Ocean Development Partners, LLC, Nicholas Fiorillo, Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Company, Wallingford Equities, LLC, Barnes Road, LLC, John Usdan, Barnes Road Farm Realty, LLC, 420 Barnes Road, LLC, Tankwood Farm Realty, LLC and 421 Barnes Road, LLC |
| 3:2022cv01331 |
| October 19, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Robert M Spector |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 12, 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 (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 17
ORDER granting #8 Motion to Remand to State Court for the reasons set forth in the attached order. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to (1) remand this matter to the Connecticut Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), and (2) close this case. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 12/8/2022. (Chambers, Jillian)
|
|
Filing 16
Memorandum in Opposition re #8 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Nicholas Fiorillo. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in further opposition)(Imbriani, Susan)
|
|
Filing 15
RESPONSE TO 7 Order to Show Cause, by Nicholas Fiorillo filed by Nicholas Fiorillo. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 envelope)(Imbriani, Susan)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER. Given the Court's observations in its October 31, 2022 Order to Show Cause 7 , the #13 Motion for Extension of Time is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant Fiorillo shall respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause and Plaintiff's #8 Motion to Remand on or before November 21, 2022.Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 11/10/2022. (Chambers, Jillian)
|
|
Filing 13
MOTION for Extension of Time until 12/14/2022 to Show Cause by Nicholas Fiorillo. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER. Defendant Fiorillo shall file his opposition to #8 Motion to Remand to State Court on or before November 14, 2022. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 11/3/2022. (Chambers, Jillian)
|
|
Filing 11
NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey R. Hellman on behalf of Raymond C. Green Funding, LLC, Raymond C. Green Inc. (Hellman, Jeffrey)
|
|
Filing 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Raymond C. Green Funding, LLC, Raymond C. Green Inc. re #8 MOTION to Remand to State Court , #9 Memorandum in Support of Motion (Hellman, Jeffrey)
|
|
Filing 9
Memorandum in Support re #8 MOTION to Remand to State Court with Exhibits A - G filed by Raymond C. Green Funding, LLC, Raymond C. Green Inc.. (Hellman, Jeffrey)
|
|
Filing 8
MOTION to Remand to State Court by Raymond C. Green Funding, LLC, Raymond C. Green Inc..Responses due by 11/23/2022 (Hellman, Jeffrey)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. On October 19, 2022, the self-represented Defendant, Nicholas Fiorillo, removed this action from the Connecticut Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1443, 1446. See Raymond C. Green Funding, LLC et al. v. Ocean Development Precinct I, LLC et al., No. HHD-CV22-5073473-S. 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)). Federal question jurisdiction does not exist in this case because the complaint's allegations, which arise from the breach of a promissory note and loan agreement, do not raise an issue of federal law. See Wells Fargo Bank, North America v. Stephens, No. 3:14-cv-1982 (VLB), 2015 WL 6551782, at *3 (D. Conn. Oct. 29, 2015). 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). The citizenships of all defendants must be different from the citizenships of all plaintiffs. Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60, 68 (2d Cir. 1990). The Plaintiffs, Raymond C. Green Funding, LLC, and Raymond C. Green, Inc., and three of the Defendants, Ocean Development Precinct I, LLC, Ocean Development Partners, LLC, and Fiorillo, are citizens of Massachusetts, and therefore there is not complete diversity.Nor may Fiorillo rely on a cursory citation to 28 U.S.C. 1443, which permits the removal of cases in which a denial of the defendant's civil rights are implicated. See Rizzitelli v. Thompson, 2014 WL 3819212, at *3 (D. Conn. Aug. 4, 2014) ("To support removal under 1443(1), it is not sufficient merely to allege that a law, fair on its face, is being administered in a discriminatory manner." (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, "conclusory... reference[s] to [civil] rights in [a] removal petition [are] woefully inadequate to support removal on the basis of [section] 1443." Four Keys Leasing & Maintenance Corp. v. Simithis, 849 F.2d 770, 774 (2d Cir. 1988). Section 1443 permits "removal by a defendant whose petition recites facts that would be sufficient, if true, to permit the federal court to infer that in the state proceeding the defendant will be denied specific equal civil rights. Such a recitation might consist of 'reference to a [state] law of general application [indicating] that the defendant will be denied or cannot enforce the specified federal rights in state courts,' Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 800 (1966); or of citation to some 'formal expression of [such a] state law,' id. at 803; or, where there is a statutory protection against suit, of citation to a law showing that the mere pendency of the action will deny the defendant his equal civil rights, id. at 805." Id. at 773. "Section 1443 'le[aves] to the state court' the protection of a defendant's federal civil rights, 'except in the rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.' City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 828 (1966)." Grohs v. Grohs, No. 3:17-cv-01605 (SRU), 2017 WL 4678182, at *3 (D. Conn. Oct. 17, 2017), adhered to on reconsideration, No. 3:17-cv-01605 (SRU), 2017 WL 5171845 (D. Conn. Nov. 8, 2017). The notice of removal does not allege that the state court proceeding was being administered in a discriminatory manner or that there is a state law depriving the Defendant of his federal civil rights so as to support removal under Section 1443. 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). The state court action was filed in 2021 and thus the notice of removal is 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)). Moreover, it appears that Fiorillo did not obtain consent for the removal from all Defendants in the state action. See 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."). For all of these reasons, the propriety of removal to this Court and/or this court's subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case appears wholly lacking. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, on or before November 14, 2022, Fiorillo shall show cause by the filing of a memorandum of law, as to why this case should not be remanded to the Connecticut Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford. Failure to file such a memorandum shall result in a sua sponte remand of this matter without further notice. So Ordered. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/31/2022. (Chambers, Jillian)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/19/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 5
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/19/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 12/18/2022 Discovery due by 4/20/2023 Dispositive Motions due by 5/25/2023 Signed by Clerk on 10/19/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
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 10/19/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Judge Kari A. Dooley and Judge Robert M. Spector added. (Freberg, B)
|
|
Filing 2
ORDER: We received your Notice of Removal which has been assigned case number 3:22-cv-01331. In order to proceed, the filing fee or a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis must be submitted to the Court by 11/18/2022 or the case will be subject to dismissal. Fee information and the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form may be found on the Court's website at ctd.uscourts.gov. Dismissal due by 11/18/2022 Signed by Clerk on 10/19/2022.(Chartier, AnnMarie)
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Nicholas Fiorillo from Hartford Superior Court, case number HHD-CV22-5073473-S., filed by Nicholas Fiorillo. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Chartier, AnnMarie)
|
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.
