Petion et al v. Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corp et al

Filing 10

ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 7 ) is hereby GRANTED, and the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 8 ) is hereby DENIED. This action is remanded to Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Waterbury. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 7/14/17. (Rafferty, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------- x
FRANTZ PETION and MARIE PHOEBE
:
PETION,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CAPITAL
:
CORP., OPTION ONE MORTGAGE
:
CORP., LIBERTY TITLE & ESCROW
:
CO., GARY D. MARINOSCI,
:
CHRISTOPHER P. ZANGARI, STEVEN
:
AUTIERI, AMANDA W. TIERNAN, LEE :
KEENEDY TIERNAN, MARINOSCK &
:
ZANGARI, P.C. and MARINOSCI &
:
TIERNAN,
:
:
Defendants.
:
-------------------------------- x

Civil No. 3:17-cv-687 (AWT)

ORDER RE MOTION TO REMAND
The plaintiffs filed this action on November 24, 2008, in the
Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Waterbury,
claiming violations of the Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”), 12
U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act (“RESPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., and also asserting state
law claims.

Defendant Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corporation

(“Allied”) removed the action to the District of Connecticut on
January 2, 2009.

At that time, the court had subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the federal causes
of action, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint
on June 16, 2009.

The Second Amended Complaint claimed no federal

causes of action and added nondiverse defendants.

The court then

granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand, declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

See Ruling

on Mot. to Remand, Petion v. Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corp.,
No. 3:09cv01(SRU), (Doc. No. 58.) (D. Conn. July 15, 2009).
On April 24, 2017, the plaintiffs, now proceeding pro se,
removed the action to the District of Connecticut.

Defendant

Liberty Title and Escrow Company has moved to remand the action to
Connecticut Superior Court.

See Doc. No. 7.

For substantially

the reasons Liberty Title and Escrow Company sets forth in its
motion -- namely, (1) removal by the plaintiff is improper, (2)
removal is untimely, and (3) the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction -- the Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 7) is hereby
GRANTED.
The Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 8) is hereby DENIED.
This action is remanded to Connecticut Superior Court for the
Judicial District of Waterbury.
It is so ordered.
Signed this 14th day of July, 2017, at Hartford, Connecticut.
/s/ AWT
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge

-2-