Nunez v. Ridgefield Apartments MIDCON LLC
| Jessica Nunez |
| Ridgefield Apartments MIDCON LLC |
| 3:2024cv01091 |
| June 21, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Rent Lease & Ejectment |
| No cause code entered |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ENTERED IN ERROR ** 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 #1 Complaint filed by Jessica Nunez, #10 Notice (Other) filed by Jessica Nunez, #9 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, #8 Standing Protective Order, 3 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, #7 Electronic Filing Order, #6 Order on Pretrial Deadlines. Signed by Chief Judge on 7/22/2024. (Mendez, D) Modified on 7/22/2024 to enter an error (Mendez, D).
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE, by Jessica Nunez. (Mendez, D) |
| Set deadline: Show Cause response due by 7-12-2024 per Dkt. 5 order. (Shafer, J.) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff Jessica Nunez, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Defendant Ridgefield Apartments MIDCON LLC for failure to accept her recent rent payments, causing her to potentially face eviction. Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3. As relief, Plaintiff seeks a "full refund" of "unearned interest," permission to continue living in her apartment, and for Defendant to accept her forms of payment. Id. at 4. 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). In order for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, either (1) the plaintiff must set forth a colorable claim arising under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute, thus invoking this Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331; or (2) there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 under 28 U.S.C. 1332. See DaSilva v. Kinsho Int'l Corp., 229 F.3d 358, 363 (2d Cir. 2000) (identifying the two categories of subject matter jurisdiction). Plaintiff appears to assert only federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. 1331, and brings her claims under: Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, Section 29 of the Federal Reserve Act, 18 U.S.C. 8, 15 U.S.C. 1605, and 15 U.S.C. 1615. Id. at 2. Plaintiff specifically seeks the imposition of "tier three" penalties against Defendant under Section 29 of the Federal Reserve Act. Id. But none of the provisions cited appear to provide Plaintiff with a private cause of action. First, the Court questions whether Defendant Ridgefield Apartment MIDCON LLC, which appears to be a leasing company, is subject to any of the requirements of the Federal Reserve Act, which appears to apply only to member banks. See 12 U.S.C. 504; Banco San Juan Internacional, Inc. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of New York, No. 23-cv-6414 (JGK), 2023 WL 7111182, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2023) (explaining how "[t]he Federal Reserve System was established in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act"). Second, tier three penalties are civil penalties that may be enforced by the Federal Reserve Board, not private plaintiffs. See Harp v. Police and Fire Fed. Credit Union, No. 23-2577, 2023 WL 5152625, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2023) (explaining that Section 29 "imposes penalties on banks for an array of misconduct," and "the imposition of civil penalties under Section 29 is carried out by federal officials, and private individuals do not have a private right of action"); see also Scriven v. Barnum, No. 24-CV-1805 (EK) (MJ), 2024 WL 1769318, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2024) (recognizing that "there is no private right of action under the Federal Reserve Act"). Third, none of the other provisions cited appear to offer a private cause of action. See 18 U.S.C. 8 (defining the terms "obligation or other security of the United States"); 15 U.S.C. 1605 (defining "finance charge"). As for Plaintiff's claim under 15 U.S.C. 1615, that statute states that "[i]f a consumer prepays in full the financed amount under any consumer credit transaction, the creditor shall promptly refund any unearned portion of the interest charge to the consumer," but Plaintiff does not allege she was ever provided a loan by Defendant. By July 12, 2024, Plaintiff shall show cause as to why the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The Court notes that diversity jurisdiction may theoretically provide an alternative basis, as Plaintiff alleges she is a citizen of Connecticut, and Defendant is a citizen of New York. See 28 U.S.C. 1332. But Plaintiff must also show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, id, for this type of jurisdiction to be proper. Plaintiff may wish to contact the New Haven Legal Assistance Associations Federal Pro Se Program at https://nhlegal.org/other-resources/ if she seeks legal advice in connection with this matter. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/25/2024.(Piccolo, M)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #2 Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/25/2024. (Piccolo, M)
|
| Filing 9 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 8
Standing Protective Order. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/21/2024. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/21/2024. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 6
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 8/20/2024. Discovery due by 12/21/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 1/25/2025. Signed by Clerk on 6/21/2024. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 3 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 6/21/2024. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, by Jessica Nunez. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Ridgefield Apartments MIDCON LLC, filed by Jessica Nunez. (Attachments: #1 Attachment)(Mendez, D) |
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge Thomas O. Farrish added. (Shafer, J.) |
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: Nunez v. Ridgefield Apartments MIDCON LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jessica Nunez | |
| 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: Ridgefield Apartments MIDCON LLC | |
| 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.
