Bank of New York Mellon Trustee v. Nagachandra

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 8/6/2015. (ca2s, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUSTEE Plaintiff, v. NAGACHANDRA NAGARAJ, et. al. Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * Civil No.: PJM 15-1171 MEMORANDUM OPINION The Court has reviewed Defendants’ purported “Notice of Removal.” Apart from the numerous, egregious deficiencies in this supposed Removal, Defendants’ filing is clearly an attempt to collaterally attack an Order disposing of a years-long foreclosure action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Case No. 324835V. None of this information was disclosed in the “Notice of Removal” filed by Attorney Kosmas N. Johns. Instead, the “Notice” suggested “[t]his all occurred in Civil Action 21C306676.” Paper No. 1 ¶ 6. The Court’s own search of the Maryland Judiciary Case Search could find no such case number, but did uncover the correct case, No. 324835V. Moreover, it is worth noting that—despite the fact that three different law firms of record represented Bank of New York Mellon in the underlying state court proceeding—none of them was served with the “Notice of Removal.” Counsel for Defendants instead certified that, for some inexplicable reason, he had sent the Notice by first-class mail to the Bank in Plano, TX, and to an attorney in Virginia Beach, VA. Counsel is strongly urged to consult Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before undertaking similar action in the future. It is clear to the Court that the purported “Removal” is improper, and that the underlying state case has been resolved and closed, and that a Final Judgment (Order) of Possession of the subject property was entered consistent with the remand from the Court of Special Appeals on or about April 22, 2015. See Order Granting Possession of Property in Edward S. Cohn, v. Nagachandra Nagaraj, et. al., Case No. 324835V (Cir. Ct. Montgomery Cty. Apr. 22, 2015); see also Bank of New York Mellon v. Nagaraj, 105 A.3d 1044 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014). Judge Callahan’s April 22, 2015 Order notably was not appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.1 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this case. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE the case. A separate Order will issue. _______________/s/________________ PETER J. MESSITTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE August 6, 2015 1 Given the availability of appeal to Maryland’s higher courts, jurisdiction in this case also fails by reason of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Willner v. Frey, 243 F. App’x 744, 745–46 (4th Cir. 2007). 2

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?