Pacciuco LLC v. Traylor
| Pacciuco LLC |
| Sylvester Traylor |
| Patrick Saint Jean, Town of Waterford, Wilensky Wilensky, Steven P. Cardelle, Law Office of Lloyd Langhammer, PHH Mortgage Corporation, Anthony Colvert Basilica, Anthony R. Basilcia and State of Connecticut |
| 3:2023cv00354 |
| March 23, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 2, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 39 MOTION for Recall the Remand Mandate to the State Court Order by Sylvester Traylor. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 38 OBJECTION re #36 Answer to Counterclaim filed by Sylvester Traylor. (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 37 MOTION for to disqualify Judge Sarala V. Nagala Order by Sylvester Traylor. (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 36 ANSWER to #14 Counterclaim, by Pacciuco LLC, Patrick Saint Jean.(Liberty, Frank) |
| Filing 35 NOTICE by Sylvester Traylor re Case Remanded to State Notice of Right to Appeal (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 34 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Pacciuco LLC and Patrick Saint Jean by Sylvester Traylor. (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Case remanded to Housing Session of the Connecticut Superior Court in New London, Connecticut. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 33 Disclosure Statement by Pacciuco LLC. (Liberty, Frank) |
| Filing 32 NOTICE of Appearance by Frank J. Liberty on behalf of Pacciuco LLC, Patrick Saint Jean (Liberty, Frank) |
| Filing 31 MOTION for Default Entry 55(a) as to Pacciuco LLC, Patrick Saint Jean, Law Offices of Lloyd L. Langhammer, LLC, Town of Waterford, Alan Wilensky and Steven P. Cardelle by Sylvester Traylor. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D)(Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 30 MANDATE of USCA dated 4/18/2023 withdrawn #24 Notice of Appeal filed by Sylvester Traylor. (Mendez, D) |
Filing 29
ORDER finding as moot #22 Motion for Leave to Appeal. In light of Plaintiff's notice of appeal filed at ECF No. #24 , his motion for leave to appeal is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 4/17/23. (Marks, Joshua)
|
|
Filing 28
ORDER denying #27 Motion to Withdraw Appeal. On April 7, Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal. Upon receipt of this notice, the Clerk of Court prepared an index and record on appeal, which was sent to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit then opened a case for the appeal. Pacciuco v. Traylor, 23-590. This Court does not have the ability to withdraw Plaintiff's appeal. If Plaintiff wishes to withdraw his appeal, he must make the appropriate motion before the Second Circuit. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 4/17/23. (Marks, Joshua)
|
| Filing 27 MOTION to Withdraw Second Circuit Court of Appeals as an error by Sylvester Traylor. (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 26 NOTICE by Sylvester Traylor An Interlocutory Appeal to the United States Supreme Court under the Rooker Feldman Doctrine (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 25 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE RE: INDEX AND RECORD ON APPEAL re: #24 Notice of Appeal. The attached docket sheet is hereby certified as the entire Index/Record on Appeal in this matter and electronically sent to the Court of Appeals, with the exception of any manually filed documents as noted below. Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk. Documents manually filed not included in this transmission: none. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 23 Appellant's BRIEF by Sylvester Traylor. Appellee Brief due by 5/10/2023 (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 24 NOTICE OF APPEAL, by Sylvester Traylor. Document #21 corrected. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 22 MOTION for Leave to Appeal by Sylvester Traylor. (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 21 NOTICE by Sylvester Traylor re 20 Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Notice of Intent to Appeal to Second Circuit (Traylor, Sylvester) Modified on 4/11/2023 to enter an error made by filer (Mendez, D). |
|
Filing 20
ORDER. On March 23, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of removal for Pacciuco, LLC v. Sylvester Traylor and Sylvester Traylor Consultant, LLC, KNL-CV23-6060393-S, removing it from the New London Housing Session of Connecticut Superior Court. After review of the notice of removal, the Court determined that Defendant had not properly attached the required documents and ordered that he do so; Defendant promptly complied with this order. Defendant filed counterclaims naming Plaintiff, as well as several other persons and entities that were not parties to the action when it was in state court. ECF No. 14. It is these counterclaims, along with his answer and special defenses, that Defendant believes provides this Court with subject matter jurisdiction over this action. ECF No. 15 at 2. The Court has reviewed this filing and, for the reasons that follow, determines that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the instant dispute. Therefore, this case shall be remanded to Connecticut Superior Court.Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and "without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) In recognition of this principle, "[f]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press." Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). Therefore, in a removed case, "if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (emphasis added). Under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a), a defendant is empowered to remove a civil action "brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. 1441(a)(emphasis added). In order to determine whether a district court has original jurisdiction over an action, the court must consider "whether that action could have been brought originally in federal court." Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1748 (2019). To do this, the court must "evaluate whether the plaintiff could have filed its operative complaint in federal court, either because it raises claims arising under federal law or because it falls within the court's diversity jurisdiction." Id. Using this framework, it is clear that 1441(a) "does not permit removal based on counterclaims at all, as a counterclaim is irrelevant to whether the district court had original jurisdiction. Id. Under the same logic, it has long been settled law "that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Here, the removed action is an eviction proceeding under Connecticut state law. It is clear that Plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in the first instance and thus it cannot properly be removed. See Ally v. Sukkar, 128 F. App'x 194, 195 (2d Cir. 2005) (amended summary order) (holding that even when a plaintiff alleges that her claims arise under the U.S. Constitution, if the essence of her claims is a housing dispute, the federal courts lack jurisdiction); Jordan v. Levine, No. 12 CV 3527 (RRM) (JO), 2012 WL 2921024, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 17, 2012) ("Federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over landlord-tenant matters. Wrongful eviction claims, whether for a temporary or final eviction, are state law claims, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over them."), aff'd, 536 F. App'x 158 (2d Cir. 2013). The Court's conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that other courts in this district regularly remand removed housing court actions based on a lack of jurisdiction. See e.g. Annemid RI LLC v. Griffin, No. 3:22-CV-00108 (JAM), 2022 WL 3009773, at *4 (D. Conn. July 28, 2022); Sawyer v. Bernard, No. 3:21-CV-00746 (AWT), 2021 WL 6931453, at *3 (D. Conn. June 30, 2021); Bank of New York v. Stacey, No. 3:16-CV-02051 (JAM), 2017 WL 384025, at *2 (D. Conn. Jan. 26, 2017). That Defendant attempts to assert counterclaims and defenses under federal law does not alter this analysis. As the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action, this case is REMANDED to the Housing Session of the Connecticut Superior Court in New London, Connecticut. In light of this ruling, Defendant's Motions to Consolidate Cases (ECF Nos. #17 and #18 ) are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 4/7/23. (Marks, Joshua)
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER. The Court has received Defendant's Notice of Compliance with Pretrial Order (ECF No. 13) wherein he submitted certain documents relevant to the state court proceeding as required by ECF No. 9. The Court notes that, "[f]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press." Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). This is because "without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). Therefore, in a removed case, "if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (emphasis added). Finally, once it is determined the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction the Court "must remand that action to state court sua sponte or on motion." Royal Ins. Co. v. Jones, 76 F. Supp. 2d 202, 204 (D. Conn. 1999) After review of Plaintiff's submission, the Court has significant doubts concerning whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant dispute. Therefore, while the Court undertakes an examination of whether it has jurisdiction, no summonses or other process shall be issued by the Clerk of Court. If the Court determines that it does have jurisdiction over the instant action, it will provide further information regarding service of process at that time. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 4/4/23. (Marks, Joshua)
|
| Filing 18 MOTION to Consolidate Cases. Case to be consolidated with 3:23-cv-00329-SVN by Sylvester Traylor.Responses due by 4/21/2023 (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 17 MOTION to Consolidate Cases. Case to be consolidated with 3:23-cv-00329-SVN by Sylvester Traylor.Responses due by 4/21/2023 (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Sylvester Traylor. Pacciuco LLC served on 3/28/2023, answer due 4/18/2023; Patrick Saint Jean served on 3/28/2023, answer due 4/18/2023. (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE by Sylvester Traylor (Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 14 First COUNTERCLAIM against Pacciuco LLC, Patrick Saint Jean, Town of Waterford, Wilensky Wilensky, Steven P. Cardelle, Law Office of Lloyd Langhammer, PHH Mortgage Corporation, Anthony Colvert Basilica, Anthony R. Basilcia, State of Connecticut, filed by Sylvester Traylor.(Traylor, Sylvester) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH PRETRIAL ORDER by Sylvester Traylor re 9 Order,,,, (Traylor, Sylvester) |
|
Filing 12
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. SELF-REPRESENTED FILERS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGE'S STANDARD ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER WHICH IS ATTACHED. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/27/2023.(Bozek, M.)
|
| Filing 11 STANDING ORDER ON REMOVED CASES. Signed by Clerk on 3/27/2023. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 10 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 2 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, #5 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #1 Notice of Removal filed by Sylvester Traylor, #6 Electronic Filing Order, #7 Protective Order. Signed by Clerk on 3/27/2023. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER. Defendant has filed ECF No. #1 , a notice removing Case No. KNL-CV23-6060393-S from Connecticut Superior Court. In the notice, Defendant appears to assert counterclaims against Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. The notice of removal references that a "copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon Defendants to date in the State Court Action are attached as Exhibit A," see ECF No. 1 at 1, but Exhibit A does not appear on the Court's docket. The removal statutes, 28 U.S.C. secs. 1446(a) and 1446(b)(1), require a defendant removing a case from state court to attach, at minimum, (1) a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which the plaintiff's action is based, and (2) a copy of all process served upon the defendant. Accordingly, by April 10, 2023, Defendant shall file a copy of Plaintiff's Superior Court complaint and any summons or other process served upon Defendant in that action. Failure to comply with this Order may result in remand or dismissal of this case. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/27/23. (Marks, Joshua)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER granting #3 Motion to Participate in Electronic Filing. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/27/23. (Marks, Joshua)
|
|
Filing 7
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/23/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/23/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 5
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 5/22/2023. Discovery due by 9/22/2023. Dispositive Motions due by 10/27/2023. Signed by Clerk on 3/23/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 4 Consent to Electronic Notice by Sylvester Traylor. (Samson, Jessalyn) |
| Filing 3 MOTION By Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing by Sylvester Traylor. (Samson, Jessalyn) |
| Filing 2 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, any nongovernmental corporate party must electronically file a disclosure statement that identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock or states that there is no such corporation. Such disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 3/23/2023.(Samson, Jessalyn) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Sylvester Traylor from Superior Court for the State of Connecticut, case number KNL-CV23-6060393-S., filed by Sylvester Traylor.(Samson, Jessalyn) |
| Filing fee received from Sylvester Traylor: $ 402, manual receipt number 605648. (Samson, Jessalyn) |
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge Thomas O. Farrish added. (Oliver, T.) |
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.
