Hoeller v. Codilis & Associates, P.C. et al

Filing 5

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 6/28/2011: For the reasons stated below, the instant action is dismissed and Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 4 is denied as moot. If Plaintiff can show that this court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case, he may file a motion to reinstate detailing the basis for this court's subject matter jurisdiction, by July 18, 2011. All pending dates and motions are hereby stricken as moot. Civil case terminated. (For further details see Written Opinion.) Mailed notice. (psm, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CASE NUMBER

11 C 4154

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

6/28/2011

Timothy L. Hoeller vs. Codilis & Associates, P.C., et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, the instant action is dismissed and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [4] is denied as moot. If Plaintiff can show that this court has subject matter jurisdiction in
this case, he may file a motion to reinstate detailing the basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, by
July 18, 2011. All pending dates and motions are hereby stricken as moot. Civil case terminated.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Timothy L. Hoeller’s (Hoeller) motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. A “federal judge’s first duty in every case” is to “inquir[e] whether the court has
jurisdiction. . . .” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir.
2003). Hoeller has filed a pro se complaint and therefore, the court will liberally construe the filing since
Hoeller is proceeding pro se. See, e.g., Greer v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, Ill., 267 F.3d 723, 727
(7th Cir. 2001). In his pro se complaint, Hoeller is bringing an action against two law firms (Defendant Law
Firms). Hoeller contends that certain attorneys at Defendant Law Firms were involved in some type of fraud
with a bank and failed to complete specific performance on a foreclosure. Hoeller also makes references to
“negligence in accounting practices” by Defendants and states that certain attorneys at Defendant Law Firms
made certain errors and “failed to reasonably anticipate” certain matters. (Mot. 1). In addition, Hoeller
contends that certain attorneys at Defendant Law Firms must comply with “Real Estate Sales Rule 8.01.”
(Mot. 1). Hoeller brought the instant action in federal court and bears the burden of establishing that this
court has subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Transit Exp., Inc. v. Ettinger, 246 F.3d 1018, 1023 (7th Cir.
2001). Hoeller has not alleged facts that would suggest that there are any federal claims against Defendant
Page
11C4154 Timothy L. Hoeller vs. Codilis & Associates, P.C., et al.

1 of 2

STATEMENT
Law Firms. To the extent that Hoeller is seeking to bring state law claims for fraud, breach of contract, or
malpractice, Hoeller has not shown that this court has diversity subject matter jurisdiction over such state law
claims. Therefore, the instant action is dismissed and the instant motion is denied as moot. If Hoeller can
show that this court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case, he may file a motion to reinstate detailing the
basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, by July 18, 2011.

Page
11C4154 Timothy L. Hoeller vs. Codilis & Associates, P.C., et al.

2 of 2