Rothermel v. U.S. Bank National Association et al
| Carol Rothermel |
| U.S. Bank National Association, Geraldine A. Cheverko, Daniel B. Glass, Jessica L. Braus, Ridgely W. Brown, Jim Chosy, U.S. Bank Corp., Cameron Ward, Peter Zaboretzky and John Mezzo |
| 3:2023cv01329 |
| October 12, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 MOTION for Relief of Order, by Carol Rothermel. (Mendez, D) |
Filing 15
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Plaintiff has filed this action seeking to void the allegedly wrongful foreclosure of her home in New Canaan, Connecticut. 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 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. First, Plaintiff lost in the applicable state court matter. Second, Plaintiff complains that the state court wrongfully authorized sale by foreclosure of her property, and that she was injured by this action of the state court. Third, Plaintiff seeks district court review and rejection of the state court's judgment. See ECF No. 1 at 3 ("The Plaintiff seeks to void the foreclosure sale of her home in New Canaan CT conducted by the defendant, US Bank[,] on February 27, 2023."). Fourth and finally, the state court judgment was rendered no later than June 17, 2019, see U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n as Trustee ex rel. Holders of the Adjustable Rate Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1 v. Rothermel, No. FST-CV13-6017616-S, 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 10/31/2023. (Parfenoff, Ivan)
|
| Filing 14 RESPONSE re 10 Order, filed by Carol Rothermel. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 13 Certification, by Carol Rothermel. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 12 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Ridgely W. Brown, Jim Chosy, Daniel B. Glass, John Mezzo, U.S. Bank National Association, Cameron Ward, Peter Zaboretzky* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. *Carol Rothermel* *43 Crawford Terrace* *Riverside, CT 06878*. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Ridgely W. Brown, Jim Chosy, Daniel B. Glass, John Mezzo, U.S. Bank National Association, Cameron Ward, Peter Zaboretzky. (Imbriani, Susan) |
|
Filing 11
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 10/16/2023.(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER. 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 action appears to challenge a ruling in a state court foreclosure action. Accordingly, the Court likely lacks jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 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. See Ashby, 328 F. App'x at 21. Here, the complaint states that Plaintiff "seeks to void the wrongful foreclosure sale of her home," which appears to have been conducted following entry of judgment of foreclosure by the Connecticut Superior Court, Housing Session, in U.S. Bank N.A. v. Rothermel, Case No. FST-CV13-6017616-S. It thus appears Plaintiff is challenging the state court judgment, and that the other elements of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine may be met. No later than October 30, 2023, Plaintiff shall respond to this order explaining why she believes this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/16/2023. (Parfenoff, Ivan)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #3 Motion to Participate in Electronic Filing. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/16/2023. (Parfenoff, Ivan)
|
| Filing 8 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 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #7 Protective Order, 4 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, #6 Electronic Filing Order, #1 Complaint, filed by Carol Rothermel. Signed by Clerk on 10/13/2023. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 7
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/12/2023. (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 10/12/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 5
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 12/11/2023. Discovery due by 4/12/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 5/17/2024. Signed by Clerk on 10/12/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 4 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 10/12/2023. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 3 MOTION by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing Order by Carol Rothermel. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 2 Consent to Electronic Notice by Carol Rothermel (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Jessica L. Braus, Ridgely W. Brown, Geraldine A. Cheverko, Jim Chosy, Daniel B. Glass, John Mezzo, U.S. Bank Corp., U.S. Bank National Association, Cameron Ward, Peter Zaboretzky, filed by Carol Rothermel. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing fee received from Carol Rothermel: $ 402.00, receipt number TBD (Oliver, T.) |
| 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.
