Lolli v. Roach & Lin, P.C. et al
| Anthony N. Lolli |
| Roach & Lin, P.C., US Bank National Association, US Bank National Association, not in its individual capacity, but solely as owner Trustee of the New residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2020-NQM1 and U.S. Bank National Association |
| 2:2022cv06592 |
| October 28, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Steven Tiscione |
| Eric N Vitaliano |
| Consumer Credit |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Notice of Removal, by U.S. Bank National Association, U.S. Bank National Association. (Bonner, Shamola) |
ORDER granting #13 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #13 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Notice of Removal, U.S. Bank National Association answer due 12/30/2022; U.S. Bank National Association answer due 12/30/2022. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione on 12/20/2022. (LV)
|
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Shamola Bonner on behalf of U.S. Bank National Association, U.S. Bank National Association (aty to be noticed) (Bonner, Shamola) |
|
ORDER finding as moot #7 Motion for Pre Motion Conference, denying #11 Motion for Leave to Amend, and dismissing counterclaim. In light of the parties' submissions at #7 and #11 , the Court finds a pre-motion conference unnecessary. The Court finds that defendant Roach & Lin, P.C.'s answer at [1-4] untimely moved for attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3), styling itself as a counterclaim. The provision under which defendant seeks relief does not provide a separate cause of action; rather, defendant may move for relief after adjudication of the primary dispute. See, e.g., Hardin v. Folger, 704 F. Supp. 355 (W.D.N.Y. 1988). On consent, defendant's purported counterclaim is hereby dismissed. It may raise its claims following the resolution of the primary action. Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 12/16/2022. (SW)
|
| Filing 11 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Opposition re #7 MOTION for pre motion conference re #1 Notice of Removal, filed by Roach & Lin, P.C.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Service) (Rugino, Edward) |
| Filing 10 Request for Certificate of Default by Anthony N. Lolli (Attachments: #1 Affidavit AFFIRMATION OF BRIAN L. PONDER, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF DEFAULT, #2 Exhibit A - copy of Summons and Verified Complaint, #3 Exhibit B - affidavits of service for Defendants U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2020-NQM1, #4 Exhibit C - copy of Notice of Removal, #5 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] CERTIFICATE OF DEFAULT) (Ponder, Brian) |
| Filing 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Anthony N. Lolli. U.S. Bank National Association served on 11/1/2022, answer due 11/22/2022. (Ponder, Brian) |
| Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Anthony N. Lolli. U.S. Bank National Association served on 11/1/2022, answer due 11/22/2022. (Ponder, Brian) |
|
ORDER: Defendant is directed to respond, pursuant to the Court's individual rules, to plaintiff's motion for a pre-motion conference at #7 no later than 12/15/2022.Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 12/8/2022. (SW)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for pre motion conference re #1 Notice of Removal, by Anthony N. Lolli. (Ponder, Brian) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian L Ponder on behalf of Anthony N. Lolli (notification declined or already on case) (Ponder, Brian) |
| Filing 5 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. (LJ) |
| Filing 4 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (LJ) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Eric N. Vitaliano and Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (LJ) |
| Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet.. by Roach & Lin, P.C. (LJ) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Roach & Lin, P.C. re #1 Notice of Removal, upon plaintiff (Rugino, Edward) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Roach & Lin, P.C. from Kings County Supreme Court, case number 528328/2022. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-16088768) Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes (Attachments: #1 Exhibit State Court Minutes for the Case, #2 Removal Action Complaint with Summons, #3 Affidavit of Service of Process Upon Roach & Lin, P.C., #4 Exhibit Answer of Roach & Lin, P.C.) (Rugino, Edward) Modified on 10/31/2022 (LJ). |
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.
