JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. JOHNSON et al

Filing 31

LETTER MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 05/08/2018. (ek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF

MARTIN LUTHER KING
COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
ROOM 5076
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-297-4887

ESTHER SALAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

May 8, 2018
LETTER MEMORANDUM
Re:

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Johnson, et al.
Civil Action No. 17-2719 (ES) (SCM)

Dear Parties:
Pending before the Court is pro se Defendants Eric Johnson, Ann Johnson, and Robert
Mahoney’s (“Defendants”) motion for reconsideration of this Court’s remand Order. (D.E. No.
27). Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMorgan”) opposed Defendants’
motion (D.E. No. 29), and Defendants replied (D.E. No. 30). For the following reasons,
Defendants’ motion is DENIED.
Procedural History. In December 2015, JPMorgan filed a residential Mortgage
Foreclosure Complaint against Defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, Morris County. (D.E. No. 15). JPMorgan’s Complaint alleged that Defendants’
mortgage loan was in default. (See id.). Defendants attempted to remove the case to this Court
based on diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction arising from a defense under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), as well as other federal statutes, regulations,
and constitutional provisions. (See D.E. No. 1-1). JPMorgan then moved to remand because:
(i) the Complaint raised no issues of federal law and seeks relief based solely on state law; and (ii)
Defendants are New Jersey citizens, and therefore the forum-defendant rule precludes this Court
from exercising diversity jurisdiction. (See D.E. No. 10-1).
On October 11, 2017, the Hon. Steven C. Mannion, U.S.M.J., issued a Report and
Recommendation (the “R&R”) that the Court grant JPMorgan’s remand motion. (D.E. No. 22).
Magistrate Judge Mannion provided the parties fourteen days to file and serve any objections to
the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2). The parties did not file any
objections.
On November 15, 2017, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Mannion’s R&R in full and
remanded this case to the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Morris County. (D.E. No. 25).
Three months later, Defendants filed their motion for reconsideration.

Legal Standard. Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for reconsideration in this
District. Under that Rule, “a motion for reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 days
after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge or Magistrate Judge.”
L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
A motion for reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy to be granted very sparingly.”
In re Lord Abbett Mut. Funds Fee Litig., 417 F. Supp. 2d 624, 627 (D.N.J. 2005). To prevail on a
motion for reconsideration, a party must demonstrate: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence . . . ; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice.” Reardon v. Zonies, No. 17-3551, 2018 WL 1747739, at *2 (3d
Cir. Apr. 11, 2018) (citation omitted) (alteration in original). “A motion for reconsideration is
improper when it is used to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought through—rightly
or wrongly.” Oritani Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 744 F. Supp. 1311, 1314
(D.N.J. 1990).
Analysis. As an initial matter, Defendants’ motion is untimely. Defendants seek
reconsideration of this Court’s November 15, 2017 remand Order. So, under Local Civil Rule
7.1(i), Defendants needed to file their motion by November 29, 2017. Defendants did not file their
motion until February 14, 2018—nearly three months later.
But the Court recognizes that Defendants are proceeding pro se. See Mala v. Crown Bay
Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2013) (noting that courts in the Third Circuit “tend to be
flexible when applying procedural rules to pro se litigants). And this Court may extend the time
in which a party may move for reconsideration. See Gutiereez v. Johnson & Johnson, 523 F.3d
187, 193 n.5 (3d Cir. 2008) (noting that district courts are generally free to permit the filing of
motions for reconsideration beyond the deadline set by the local rules). Thus, the Court will
consider whether Defendants have satisfied any of the three prongs under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i).
Defendants do not contend that an intervening change in the controlling law or new
evidence warrant reconsideration. (See generally D.E. No. 27). Rather, they argue that the Court
overlooked various facts and arguments in finding that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the
case. (See id. at 3) (arguing that Magistrate Judge Mannion “made several erroneous statements
which appear to be due to failure to read Defendants’ proofs”). In particular, Defendants argue
that their “removal was due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution under which Federal
properties are domiciled.” (Id.; see also D.E. No. 30 (“Defendants’ [sic] have many times
addressed the fact that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution takes precedence as this is a
Government Owned Loan on a Government owned property. Federal jurisdiction does apply.”)).
In short, Defendants’ motion reiterates the same arguments that Magistrate Judge Mannion
and this Court already considered and rejected. Accordingly, Defendants have not satisfied any of
the prongs under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), and their motion must be denied.
SO ORDERED.
s/Esther Salas
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.