Papapietro v. Clott et al
| Anthony Papapietro |
| Michael Howard Clott, Bjorn Koritz, John Murray, Charles R. Cuneo, Steckler, Gutman, Morrissey & Murray, National Residential Realty Fund, LLC, National Realty Recovery Co. LLC, Realty Recovery LLC, Real Estate Recovery LLC, Grand Bank, N.A. - Carnegie Mortgage, Bank of America, Ocwen Loan Servicing, MTGLQ Investors, LP, John Schwartz, Chad Adler, Joseph Schlamowitz, Christian Dipretoro, Marco Caridi, Alisa Liebowitz, Erin Clott and Ryan Clott |
| 1:2022cv03409 |
| May 27, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Rachel P Kovner |
| Vera M Scanlon |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Anthony Papapietro. (Lee, Tiffeny) |
ORDER: The motion for an extension of time #8 is granted. Defendant shall file his letter by 8/10/2022. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 7/25/2022. (Daus, Benjamin)
|
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Defendant purports to remove this action on the basis of the Court's supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state-law claims in Papapietro v. Clott, No. 22-CV-1318 (E.D.N.Y.). See Notice of Removal 3 (Dkt. #1) ("Motion for Removal Based on Ancillary Jurisdiction"). However, supplemental jurisdiction does not provide a basis for removal "even if the action which a defendant seeks to remove is related to another action over which the federal district court already has subject-matter jurisdiction, and even if removal would be efficient." Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey v. Allianz Ins. Co., 443 F. Supp. 2d 548, 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (quoting Ahearn v. Charter Township of Bloomfield, 100 F.3d 451, 456 (6th Cir. 1996)); see Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Cela, No. 16-CV-02054 (SRU), 2017 WL 53690, at *3 (D. Conn. Jan. 4, 2017) (collecting cases). Nor do other forms of ancillary jurisdiction provide a basis for removal. See Syngenta Crop Prot. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 34 (2002) ("[A]ncillary jurisdiction... cannot provide the original jurisdiction that [defendants] must show in order to qualify for removal." (quotations omitted)). "Except as otherwise expressly provided by an Act of Congress," a case may only be removed if "the district courts of the United States ha[s] original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. 1441(a).The Court also does not appear to have original jurisdiction over this action. The foreclosure action does not appear to involve any federal claims, see Notice of Removal 5-6, and even if plaintiff failed to comply with federal statutes governing mortgages in the course of the foreclosure, "[t]he mere existence or invocation of a federal defense does not furnish a sufficient basis for jurisdiction to attach." Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. DeFranco, No. 19-CV-90 (VAB), 2019 WL 3064980, at *4 (D. Conn. July 12, 2019) (quoting City of Rome, N.Y. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 362 F.3d 168, 174 (2d Cir. 2004) (remanding removed foreclosure action for lack of jurisdiction despite alleged Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations by plaintiff). The case also does not satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. For diversity jurisdiction to exist, the controversy must be completely diverse, meaning that all plaintiffs must be citizens of different states from all defendants. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Citizenship must be "distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or should appear with equal distinctness in other parts of the record." Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Cap., Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 1996) (quotations omitted); see Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53, 75 (2d Cir. 2019). Defendant has not satisfied these requirements, because he has not clearly alleged his citizenship or that of plaintiff, MTGLQ Investors, LP, which appears to be a limited partnership. To allege the citizenship of a limited partnership, the party asserting federal jurisdiction must identify and allege the citizenship of each partner. Caren v. Collins, 689 F. App'x 75, 76 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96(1990)); see Handelsman v. Bedford Vill. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 2000).Accordingly, defendant is ordered to file a letter with the Court of not more than three pages by 8/3/2022 showing cause why jurisdiction exists. Otherwise, the case will be dismissed. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 7/20/2022. (Daus, Benjamin)
|
| Filing 7 Letter from Anthony Papapietro to Patrick J. Wesner, Esq. dated 7/5/2022 re: papers served on 8/17/2017 and the validity of it. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (Herrera, Isaiah). |
| Filing 6 FILING FEE: $ 402.00, receipt number 4653166290 (Herrera, Isaiah) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF DEFICIENT FILING, litigant notified of deficiency(s) that must be corrected within fourteen (14) days. Document mailed. (Herrera, Isaiah) |
| Filing 4 Plaintiff's Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal / Motion for Removal Based on Ancillary Jurisdiction filed by Anthony Papapietro. (Herrera, Isaiah) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF DEFICIENT FILING, litigant notified of deficiency(s) that must be corrected within fourteen (14) days. Document mailed. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 2 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Anthony Papapietro from Supreme Court of the State of New York, Richmond County, case number 135187/19. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Bowens, Priscilla) |
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 New York Eastern 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.
