176 Carlou CT Group Corp. v. Alberti et al

Petitioner: 176 Carlou CT Group Corp.
Respondent: Jane Doe 1-3, Wayne Alberti and John Doe 1-3
Case Number: 2:2018cv06036
Filed: October 29, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Joan M Azrack
Referring Judge: Steven I Locke
Nature of Suit: Rent Lease & Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441
Jury Demanded By: None

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 28, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 28, 2018 Opinion or Order ORDER of Remand to State Court: On October 29, 2018, pro se respondent Wayne Alberti removed this eviction proceeding from the First District Court in Nassau County. Alberti invokes both federal question and diversity of citizenship as the basis of the Courts subject matter jurisdiction. The Court, however, lacks subject matter jurisdiction on both grounds. Notwithstanding the liberal pleading standard afforded to pro se litigants, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may not preside over cases if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 700-01 (2d Cir. 2000). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time by a party or by the Court sua sponte. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). First, this eviction proceeding does not arise under federal law because the petition neither invokes a federal cause of action nor does Petitioners right to relief depend on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. See Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006). To the extent Alberti premised removal on the presence of counterclaims or defenses based on federal law, that is not a basis for removal to federal court. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002). Second, diversity of citizenship is also not a viable basis for subject matter jurisdiction because complete diversity is lacking. Here, both parties are citizens of New York. Finally, Albertis request to submit additional briefing concerning the propriety of removal is denied. This notice of removal appears to be a frivolous attempt to obstruct the eviction proceeding in state court. Accordingly, this action is sua sponte remanded to the First District Court in Nassau County. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that, should respondent seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, such status for the purpose of an appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the First District Court in Nassau County, New York. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this Order to pro se respondent Wayne Alberti. So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 11/28/2018. (Ortiz, Grisel) (c/m to pro se)
October 31, 2018 Filing 3 Letter from Pro Se Office to Pro Se Litigant dated 10/31/2018 Re: This letter acknowledges receipt of your civil action(s). (Ortiz, Grisel)
October 29, 2018 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. (Cox, Dwayne)
October 29, 2018 FILING FEE: $ 400.00, receipt number 26434 (Cox, Dwayne)
October 29, 2018 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Wayne Alberti, Jane Doe 1-3, John Doe 1-3 from District Court of the County of Nassau, First District Landlord Tenant Part, case number LT NO: 6059/18. Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Cox, Dwayne)

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 this case: 176 Carlou CT Group Corp. v. Alberti et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Jane Doe 1-3
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Wayne Alberti
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: John Doe 1-3
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: 176 Carlou CT Group Corp.
Represented By: Matthew K. Tannenbaum
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 [ 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.


Why Is My Information Online?