Nucci v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING 30 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R, and accordingly, DENIES Plaintiff's motion to remand. The court previously denied as premature PHH's motion requesting a pre-motion conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the Complaint. (See Sept. 3, 2014, Order at 3.) The court ordered that PHH's time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint would extend until fourteen days fol lowing entry of an Order deciding Plaintiff's motion to remand. (Id.) Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this Order, PHH shall file an Answer to the Complaint or shall renew its request for a pre-motion conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the Complaint. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 3/26/2015. (c/m to pro se) (Lee, Tiffeny)

D/F
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
NICOLA NUCCI,

ORDER
Plaintiff,
14-CV-2683 (NGG) (RML)
-againstPHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION and
COMMERCE BANK, N.A.,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
On April 29, 2014, TD Bank, N.A. (successor to named Defendant Commerce
Bank, N.A.) removed this quiet title action from New York Supreme Court, Kings County. 1
(Not. of Removal (Dkt. 1).) On May 12, 2014, prose PlaintiffNicola Nucci filed a motion to
remand the action to state court. (Mot. to Remand (Dkt. 7).) On July 21, 2014, Defendant PHH
Mortgage Corp. ("PHH")-which had not appeared in this case prior to that date-filed a letter
requesting an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs motion to remand. (July 21, 2014, Ltr.
(Dkt. 14).) On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a brief in further support of his motion to remand.
(Pl. Reply (Dkt. 17).) On September 3, 2014, PHH filed an opposition to Plaintiffs motion to
remand (Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Pl. Mot. for Remand (Dkt. 23)) and a sur-reply in further
opposition to the motion to remand (Sur-Reply Mem. of Law in Further Opp'n to Pl. Mot. for
Remand (Dkt. 25)). By Order dated September 3, 2014, the court referred the motion to remand
to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(l). (See Order (Dkt. 27)

1

Plaintiff subsequently stipulated to the dismissal of his claims against TD Bank, N.A. (See Stip. of Dismissal
Between Pl. and TD Bank, N.A. (Dkt. I 0).) PHH Mortgage Corp. is the only remaining Defendant in this action.

I

at 3.) The parties thereafter filed additional briefing before Judge Levy. (See Pl. Reply
(Dkt. 28); Dec. 2, 2014, PHH Ltr. Br. (Dkt. 29).)
On March 4, 2015, Judge Levy issued an R&R recommending that the court deny
Plaintiff's motion to remand. (R&R (Dkt. 30).) No party has objected to Judge Levy's R&R,
and the time to do so has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). (See also R&R at 5 ("Any
objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court ... within
fourteen days. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the
district court's order.").) Therefore, the court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Gesualdi v.
Mack Excavation & Trailer Serv., Inc., No. 09-CV-2502 (KAM) (JO), 2010 WL 985294, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010); La Torres v. Walker, 216 F. Supp. 2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000);
cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R, and
accordingly, DENIES Plaintiffs motion to remand. See Porter v. Potter, 219 F. App'x 112
(2d Cir. 2007) (summary order).
The court previously denied as premature PHH's motion requesting a pre-motion
conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the Complaint. (See Sept. 3, 2014,
Order at 3.) The court ordered that PHH's time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint
would extend until fourteen days following entry of an Order deciding Plaintiffs motion to
remand. (Id.) Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this Order, PHH
shall file an Answer to the Complaint or shall renew its request for a pre-motion conference in
anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the Complaint.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March2G., 2015

United States District Judge

2