Bank of New York Mellon Trustee v. Nagachandra
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 8/6/2015. (ca2s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
NAGACHANDRA NAGARAJ, et. al.
Civil No.: PJM 15-1171
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, et.al. 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.
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 6, 2015
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).
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?