DiRubba v. DiRubba
| Anna Maria DiRubba |
| Luigi DiRubba |
| 3:2023cv01074 |
| August 11, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Omar A Williams |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 29, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Case remanded to State Court Judicial District of New Haven. (Velez, F.) |
Filing 11
ORDER remanding action. Defendant has filed a notice of removal which purports to remove a state divorce proceeding to federal court, which also addressed custodial arrangements for Defendant's six children. But the court can discern no basis for federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal. In the first instance, Defendant fails to properly file the pleadings associated with the state action, as required by 28 U.S.C. s. 1446(a). Moreover, it is axiomatic that federal courts have limited jurisdiction and must dismiss actions where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Nike, Inc. v. Already, LLC, 663 F.3d 89, 94 (2d. Cir. 2011). A federal court also must "inquire as to subject matter jurisdiction and satisfy itself that such jurisdiction exists." DeVito Verdi, Inc. v. Legal Sea Foods, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-1007-MKV, 2021 WL 1600088, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2021) (quoting Da Silva v. Kinsho Int'l Corp., 229 F.3d 358, 36162 (2d Cir. 2000)). At bottom, this case is an appeal of a judgment of divorce and attendant custodial determinations issued by a state court, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from hearing appeals from state-court judgments. Schweitzer v. Crofton, 935 F. Supp. 2d 527, 540 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd, 560 F. App'x 6 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 84 (2d Cir.2005)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has found that the doctrine applies where four criteria are satisfied: (1) the federal-court plaintiff must have lost in state court, (2) the plaintiff must complain of injuries caused by the state-court judgment, (3) the plaintiff must invite the district court to review and reject that state-court judgment, and (4) the state-court judgment must have been rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. Green v. Mattingly, 585 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 2009). Here, it is clear that each of these elements is satisfied. Defendant lost custodial rights in state court, which is the source of the injury Defendant complains of. And while Defendant does not state his prayer for relief explicitly, he appears to invite the court to review and to reject the state courts determinations. And finally, the notice states that the orders at issue occurred in 2020, well before this action was initiated in 2023. Therefore, it is clear that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies in this case, and that the federal district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action.Further still, even if federal jurisdiction exists, the court finds it appropriate abstain from exercising its jurisdiction under the domestic relations abstention doctrine, which recognizes that "even if subject matter jurisdiction lies over a particular [domestic] action, federal courts may properly abstain from adjudicating such actions in view of the greater interest and expertise of state courts in this field." Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Block, 905 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir. 1990); see also Deem v. DiMella-Deem, 941 F.3d 618, 620 (2d Cir. 2019) (affirming a district courts abstention from deciding a Section 1983 action where the plaintiff's claims were, or were "on the verge of being, about child custody."). Defendant's notice of removal seeks redress for what he asserts was a violation of his right to family integrity; this subject matter is firmly within the states' province to adjudicate, and Defendant must apply to the state courts for relief. For the foregoing reasons, the court respectfully asks the Clerk of Court to please remand this action to state court. Consequently, Defendant's motion to participate in electronic filing, ECF No. #5 , is denied as moot. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 8/17/23. (Wagner, Rebecca)
|
| 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 #5 MOTION for by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing Order filed by Luigi DiRubba, #4 Consent to Electronic Notice filed by Luigi DiRubba, #9 Order, #8 Protective Order, #3 Appearance Self Represented Party filed by Luigi DiRubba, 2 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, #1 Notice of Removal filed by Luigi DiRubba, #7 Electronic Filing Order, #6 Order on Pretrial Deadlines Signed by Clerk on 8/14/2023. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order on Removed Cases) (Peterson, M) |
| Set Deadline: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 9/24/2023. (Velez, F.) |
|
Filing 9
Standing Order to Litigants Regarding Letters to the Court Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 8/11/2023. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 8
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 08/11/2023. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 08/11/2023. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 6
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 10/10/2023. Discovery due by 2/10/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 3/16/2024. Signed by Clerk on 08/11/2023. (Peterson, M)
|
| Judge Omar A. Williams and Judge S. Dave Vatti added. (Freberg, B) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing by Luigi DiRubba. (Chartier, A) |
| Filing 4 Consent to Electronic Notice by Luigi DiRubba (Chartier, A) |
| Filing 3 Appearance Self Represented Party by Luigi DiRubba (Chartier, A) |
| Filing 2 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a 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 8/11/2023.(Chartier, A) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Luigi DiRubba, filed by Luigi DiRubba.(Chartier, A) |
| Filing fee received from Luigi DiRubba: $ 402.00, receipt number: TBD (Chartier, A) |
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
| Search for this case: DiRubba v. DiRubba | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Anna Maria DiRubba | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Luigi DiRubba | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
