DIPIETRO v. LANDIS TITLE COMPANY et al
Filing
62
OPINION AND ORDER directing the Clerk to reopen this case; denying Motion for Application of Payment in this Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) and or Withdrawal of Funds; denying 61 Plaintiff's Rule 60 Motion, to Reinstate; directing the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 10/17/2023. (alb, n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
PETER DIPIETRO,
Civ. No. 1:11-cv-5110-NLH-AMD
Plaintiff,
OPINION and ORDER
v.
LANDIS TITLE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
PETER DIPIETRO
495 SOUTH BLUEBELL ROAD
VINELAND, NJ 08360
Appearing pro se
PHILLIP S. VAN EMBDEN
PHILLIP S. VAN EMBDEN, P.C.
P.O. BOX 863
900 EAST PINE STREET
MILLVILLE, NJ 08332
On behalf defendants Renee Gould and Landis Title
Corporation 1
CHRISTOPHER CORSI
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
210 LAKE DRIVE EAST
SUITE 200
CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002
On behalf of defendants Ballard Spahr, LLP and Mariah
Murphy
These defendants’ names are incorrectly pleaded as “Renie
Geuld” and “Landis Title Company.”
1
1
KELLY AMBER SAMUELS
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DIVISION OF LAW
25 MARKET STREET
P.O. BOX 112
TRENTON, NJ 08625
On behalf of defendants Superior Court of New Jersey, Judge
Anne McDonnell, Dan Long, and Martina Hinman
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint
alleging violations of his constitutional, statutory, and common
law rights related to a foreclosure in New Jersey state court
(ECF 1); and
WHEREAS, Newfield National Bank filed seeking foreclosure
after Plaintiff defaulted on his mortgage; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff asserted counterclaims including seeking
damages for fraud; and
WHEREAS, the chancery court judge granted summary judgment
in favor of Newfield National Bank on the foreclosure; and
WHEREAS, the matter was transferred to the New Jersey State
Court Law Division to address the counterclaims; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff added as parties Landis Title
Corporation and Landis Title Corporation employee Renee Gould as
well as Ballard Spahr, LLP and an associate attorney Mariah
Murphy who represented Newfield National Bank in the
foreclosure; and
2
WHEREAS the case was transferred from Gloucester County to
Cumberland County at Plaintiff’s request; and
WHEREAS, Judge Richard Geiger granted summary judgment
against DiPietro; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal was denied
on August 25, 2011; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff then filed this suit in federal court,
against Landis Title Corporation; Renee Gould; as well as
Ballard Spahr, LLP; Mariah Murphy; Judge Anne McDonnell; Judge
McDonnell’s law clerk Dan Long; and court employee Martina
Hinman; and
WHEREAS, Defendants moved to dismiss the case; and
WHEREAS, in this Court’s June 11, 2012 Opinion and Order
(ECF 54), this Court determined that Plaintiff’s claims were
barred by Colorado River and Younger Abstention doctrines as
well as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and dismissed Plaintiff’s
claims with prejudice; and
WHEREAS, this Court explained that “[a] comparison of
DiPietro’s claims in his amended complaint with the DiPietro’s
claims in his prior and ongoing state court proceedings shows
that DiPietro is attempting to have this Court overturn state
court judgments, interfere with the state foreclosure process,
and otherwise relitigate claims that have already been addressed
in the state court”; and
3
WHEREAS, Colorado River provides that federal district
courts may abstain from hearing cases and controversies under
“exceptional circumstances where the order to the parties to
repair to the state court would clearly serve an important
countervailing interest.”
Colorado River Water Conservation
Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976); and
WHEREAS, Younger precludes a federal court’s intervention
in ongoing state proceedings.
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971); and
WHEREAS, under Rooker-Feldman, once a state court
proceeding has concluded, the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine
applies where the relief requested in the federal court would
effectively reverse a state court decision or void its ruling;
and
WHEREAS, this Court determined that all three of these
abstention doctrines were implicated:
(1) this case and his state court matters
are parallel and substantially identical;
(2) some matters are ongoing; (3) they
implicate important state interests-foreclosure of a property in New Jersey, the
conduct of attorneys and judges in the state
court, and the actions of a local bank and
title company; (4) the state proceedings
have afforded DiPietro an adequate
opportunity to raise constitutional issues,
as they were severed from his foreclosure
action and continued as a separate case in
the Law Division; and (5) to the extent that
some of DiPietro’s state court proceedings
have concluded, his claims here are
4
“inextricably intertwined” with those state
court matters, in addition to having been
actually litigated there.”
(ECF 54 at 12); and
WHEREAS, the Court abstained from hearing Plaintiff’s
claims and dismissed Plaintiff’s case (ECF 55); and
WHEREAS, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (ECF 59); and
WHEREAS, this case has been closed since June 11, 2012; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a filing
to this Court seeking to reinstate this case pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff also filed to reinstate another closed
case in this Court, Peter DiPietro v. Morisky, et al., No. 122338; and
WHEREAS, that same day he also filed a motion entitled
“Motion for Application of Payment in this Court Registry
Investment System (CRIS)” and “Motion for Withdrawal of Funds
from the Registry of the Court” in this case as well as a number
of other closed case, including: Peter DiPietro v. Gloucester
County Sherriff’s Dept., No. 11-5878; Peter DiPietro v. Morisky,
et al., No. 12-2338; Peter DiPietro v. State of New Jersey, No.
14-352; and Peter DiPietro v. State of New Jersey, No. 19-17014
seeking the return of either $10 million or $10 billion dollars
5
from the Court’s register;2 and
WHEREAS, Rule 60(b) provides:
Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment,
Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just
terms, the court may relieve a party or its
legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60; and
WHEREAS, a Rule 60(b) motion “must be made within a
reasonable time--and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than
a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of
the proceeding.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); and
2 The motion seeks the return of “$10,000,000,000.00 TEN
MILLION DOLLARS plus any accrued interest.” (ECF 60).
6
WHEREAS, as a primary matter, Plaintiff’s Rule 60 (b)
motion is untimely.
It was filed more than ten years after this
Court dismissed the case, which is beyond any “reasonable time”
for filing; and
WHEREAS, even if the Court found Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)
motion to “be made in a reasonable time,” the substantive bases
for Plaintiff’s motion are without merit; and
WHEREAS, in his Motion to Reinstate he sets forth, in one
page, his only reason for reopening the matter as: “Judge Noel
Hillman knew that the Federal Circuit Court had original
jurisdiction but dismissed the case to cover up crimes committed
by all named defendants including STATE OF NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY”
(emphasis in original); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff does not aver any basis for this Court’s
jurisdiction, nor does he address the Colorado River, Younger,
or Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrines; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s “Motion for Application of Payment in
this Court Registry Investment System (CRIS)” and “Motion for
Withdrawal of Funds from the Registry of the Court” is patently
frivolous on its face in that it provides no legal analysis or
any allegations of a good-faith belief that such an enormous
amount of money was ever deposited into the Court Registry or
would otherwise be owed to him by the Clerk or the Court; nor,
given the nature of this matter and a review of the docket, is
7
there any objective reason why such funds would have been
deposited during the litigation of this matter or evidence that
such a deposit or deposits were ever made;
THEREFORE, it is on this 17th day of October, 2023,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen the case and shall make
a new and separate docket entry reading “CIVIL CASE REOPENED”;
and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Rule 60 Motion, (ECF 61) to
Reinstate be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; and it is also
ORDERED that the Motion for Application of Payment in this
Court Registry Investment System (CRIS)” and or Withdrawal of
Funds”, (ECF 60) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall re-close the file and make a
new and separate docket entry reading “CIVIL CASE TERMINATED”;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Opinion and
Order on Plaintiff by regular mail.
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
8
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?