Caridi v. TCF National Bank et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER:For the foregoing reasons, Caridi's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction. The case will be dismissed with prejudice unless Caridi files a complaint cu ring the jurisdictional deficiency by September 8, 2014. TCF's motions 10 11 31 , are denied as moot. Caridi's motions for an "amended order of service and extension of time to complete service," 34 ; for attorney representation, 37 ; and for a "preliminary injunction and default judgment," 41 are denied as moot. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 8/7/2014:Mailed notice(srn, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY CARIDI and DOME
DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Plaintiffs,

No. 13 C 2844

v.

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

TCF NATIONAL BANK, WILLIAM WEALL,
MICHAEL CHIN, JOSHUA BAILEY, BOB
HENRY, TIMOTHY BREEMS, MATHEW
LITVAK, FORREST INGRAM, JOSEPH
HARRIS, MICHAEL JONES, WILLIAM
COOPER, THOMAS JASPER, EARL STRATON,
BARRY WINSLOW, MARK NYQUIST, CRAIG
DAHL, PHILLIP GROBEN, KAREN J.
PORTER, SEAN KELLY, ERICKA CANNADY,
33 MANAGEMENT LLC, ATTORNEY RUFF,
ATTORNEY WEIDENNARR, ATTORNEY
REIDY, JENIFER BREEMS, BRANDON
FREUD, and PATRICK LAYNG, U.S.
TRUSTEE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Anthony Caridi, pro se, brings this action against TCF National Bank
(“TCF”), several TCF employees, Caridi’s former attorneys, and a number of other
individuals and entities (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants
unlawfully evicted him from a rental property he owned doing business as Dome
Development, LLC. Caridi alleges fraud against TCF and its employees, and
malpractice against his former attorneys. See R. 30. TCF has moved to dismiss the
claims against it and its employees for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), R. 11, and to strike the amended complaint. R. 31.
The Court, however, has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
Caridi’s claims and dismisses the case for that reason.
Background
Caridi initially filed his complaint on April 15, 2013. R. 1. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss noting that Caridi had failed to makes allegations against at least
one of the defendants named in the caption, see R. 10, and a motion dismiss for
failure to state a claim, R. 11. At the motion hearing on June 26, the Court granted
Caridi leave to file an amended complaint by August 26. R. 13. Caridi then sought
an extension of time to file his amended complaint, and noted in his motion that he
anticipated suing 40 defendants. R. 22. At the motion hearing on September 9, the
Court noted that 40 defendants was an unusually large number and cautioned
Caridi to ensure that he had a good-faith basis to sue all the individuals he
captioned in his complaint. The Court granted Caridi an extension until October 25
to filed an amended complaint. R. 25.
On October 25, instead of filing an amended complaint, Caridi filed a motion
“to vacate orders/judgments.” R. 27. At the motion hearing on November 20, the
Court emphasized to Caridi that not only had he failed to file an amended
complaint as the Court instructed, the Court was unable to decipher what Caridi
intended to communicate to the Court with his motion “to vacate orders/judgments.”
Much of the motion complained about what Caridi viewed as improper actions that
occurred during the proceedings of a bankruptcy court case he filed prior to this

2

case. See R. 27. The Court explained that if Caridi intended to appeal the result of
his bankruptcy case, he had failed to follow proper procedure for doing so. Caridi
asked for another extension to file an amended complaint, which the Court granted
until December 4. R. 29.
Caridi missed the December 4 deadline, but the next day filed a 156 page
amended complaint naming 27 individuals and entities in the caption. R. 30. Caridi
also sought judgments against ten other individuals who were not included in the
caption, and made allegations against several other individuals in the body of the
complaint who were not included in the caption or the prayer for relief. Parts of the
amended complaint are structured as numbered paragraphs, but the numbering of
the paragraphs stops and starts again in several places, so that the numbering is
not consecutive, and many paragraphs in the complaint are not numbered. Some
portions of the amended complaint appear to be cut and pasted from case law or
legal commentary.
In response to Caridi’s amended complaint, on March 28, 2014, TCF filed a
motion to strike. R. 31. At the motion hearing on April 2, the Court reinstated TCF’s
earlier motions to dismiss, R. 10; R. 11, and set a briefing schedule on TCF’s
motions. R. 33.
Analysis
TCF argues that Caridi has failed to state a claim and that the form of
Caridi’s complaint violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. TCF has not
challenged

the

Court’s

subject

matter

3

jurisdiction

over

Caridi’s

claims.

Nevertheless, the Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether
subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). Caridi alleges jurisdiction as follows:
That, the Northern District Courts has [sic] constitutional
power for [sic] subject matter federal jurisdiction over this
case pursuant to Article III, Section 2, which provides
that federal courts shall have jurisdiction over federal
questions and suits between diverse parties. This court
holds federal jurisdictional statutory authority pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1332, which authorize
district court original jurisdiction over federal questions
and civil actions between diverse parties. Finally, this
matter is before the court pursuant also to 28 U.S.C. §
157(b)(2)(A) (matters concerning the administration of the
estate), 18 U.S.C. § 156 (Knowing disregard of bankruptcy
law or rule), 18 U.S.C. § 1021 – (Title records unlawful
recording), and in conclusion, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1611
§ 112 (Criminal liability for willful and knowing
violation).
R. 30 at 8 (p. 6, ¶ 7).
The Court first examines Caridi’s allegations of federal question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. None of the federal statutes Caridi cites concern the
jurisdiction of federal courts. Moreover, Caridi does not allege that any of the
defendants violated these statutes. Nor could he, as none of these statues impose
legal obligations on any of the defendants in this case, let alone provide for private
rights of action. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (describing the jurisdiction of
bankruptcy judges); 18 U.S.C. § 156 (providing for punishment for knowing
disregard of federal law in preparing a bankruptcy petition); 18 U.S.C. § 1021
(prohibiting an “officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States
to record a conveyance of real property,” from “knowingly certify[ying] falsely that
4

such conveyance has or has not been recorded”); 15 U.S.C. § 1611 (defining criminal
liability for willful and knowing violations). Thus, none of these statues provides a
basis for federal question jurisdiction.
Caridi also alleges that the Court has jurisdiction over his claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. Even assuming that Caridi has met the amount in controversy
requirement because he borrowed $760,000 from TCF, Caridi has failed to allege
that the parties are completely diverse. See Howell by Goerdt v. Tribune Entm’t Co.,
106 F.3d 215, 217 (7th Cir. 1997) (diversity jurisdiction requires that “none of the
parties on either side of the litigation may be a citizen of a state of which a party on
the other side is a citizen”). Moreover, Caridi’s own allegations indicate that the
parties in fact are likely not diverse. Caridi alleges that he met with William Weall
and Michael Chin at a TCF branch in Chicago. Caridi’s complaint is also addressed
to Weall, Chin, and Joshua Bailey at an Illinois business address, and it is highly
likely that bank employees working at a bank in Chicago live in Illinois.
Additionally, Caridi alleges that defendants Matthew Litvak, Forrest Ingram,
Joseph Harris, Philip Groben, Karen Porter, Mr. Ruff, Mr. Weidennar, Mr. Reidy,
Jennifer Breems, and Brandon Freud, are all attorneys in Illinois. These allegations
destroy diversity jurisdiction.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Caridi’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice
for failure to adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction. The case will be

5

dismissed with prejudice unless Caridi files a complaint curing the jurisdictional
deficiency by September 8, 2014.
TCF’s motions, R. 10; R. 11; R. 31, are denied as moot. Caridi’s motions for an
“amended order of service and extension of time to complete service,” R. 34; for
attorney representation, R. 37; and for a “preliminary injunction and default
judgment,” R. 41, are denied as moot.
ENTERED:
______________________________
Honorable Thomas M. Durkin
United States District Judge
Dated: August 7, 2014

6