MHRP Realty, LLC v. 1990's Caterer's Ltd et al

Filing 3

ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to New York State District Court, Suffolk County. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this action and mark this matter CLOSED. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 8/26/2013. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
MHRP REALTY, L.L.C., as successor
in interest to 8 Equities Inc.,
Petitioner,
-against-

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-CV-4606(JS)(ARL)

1990’s CATERER’S LTD.,
Respondent,
“ABC CORP.” and “JOE ENTERPRISE,”
the names set in quotes being
fictitious persons or entities with
given and/or surnames unknown to
Petition in possession of the
Premises described herein,
Respondents-Undertenants.
---------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner:
Robert Carruba, Esq.
Berkman, Henoch, Peterson & Peddy, P.C.
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
For Respondents:

Genevieve Lane Lopresti, Esq.
3 Lake Shore Boulevard
Massapequa, NY 11758

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Petitioner MHRP Realty, LLC (“Petitioner”), the fee
owner and landlord of premises located at 2005 Route 112, Medford,
New York, commenced this landlord-tenant action in the New York
State District Court in Suffolk County on or around December 5,
2012, seeking a warrant of eviction to remove a holdover tenant,
Respondent 1990’s Caterer’s Ltd. (“Respondent”), from the subject-

premises.

Thereafter, on January 17, 2013, the state court issued

a warrant of eviction and a judgment in the amount of $15,800.66
against Respondent and in favor of Petitioner.

On or around

February 15, 2013, Respondent moved to vacate the judgment and
warrant of eviction on the grounds of fraud.

This motion was

ultimately denied by the state court.
Respondent then removed the landlord-tenant action to
federal court on August 15, 2013, purportedly on the basis of
federal

question

jurisdiction.

The

Court

has

reviewed

Respondent’s Removal Petition and the documents attached thereto,
and, for the following reasons, sua sponte REMANDS this action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a civil action filed in state
court may be removed by the defendant to federal district court if
the district court has original subject matter jurisdiction over
the plaintiff’s claim.”
F.3d

269,

271

(2d

Cir.

Lupo v. Human Affairs Int’l, Inc., 28
1994);

see

also

Citibank,

Swiatkoski, 395 F. Supp. 2d 5, 8 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).

N.A.

v.

Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(c), a district court must remand an action to state court
“[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
v. Saks & Co., 335 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2003).

See also Vera

The burden is on

the removing party to establish federal jurisdiction, and any
2

doubts about jurisdiction must be resolved against removability.
See People v. Atl. Richfield Co. (In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
(“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig.), 488 F.3d 112, 124 (2d Cir. 2007).
“In determining whether a [removal] petition establishes
the existence of a federal question, removal based on federal
jurisdiction is improper unless a federal claim appears on the
face of a well-pleaded complaint.”

Four Keys Leasing & Maint.

Corp. v. Simithis, 849 F.2d 770, 773 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1,
10, 103 S. Ct. 2841, 77 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1983)); see also Morrison
v. Seafarers Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 954 F. Supp. 55, 57
(E.D.N.Y. 1996) (“[T]he Court must limit its search for a federal
question to a plaintiff’s claims as stated in his or her complaint
and may not look to anticipated defenses which a defendant might
impose in order to find a federal question ‘hook.’”). “Allegations
made for the first time in a removal petition thus cannot support
the removal of a case on federal grounds.”

Four Keys Leasing &

Maint., 849 F.2d at 773.
Here, Respondent argues that this Court has federal
question

jurisdiction

deprivation

of

because

Respondent’s

eviction

property

premises without due process of law.

would

interest

result
in

the

in

a

subject

Not only does this not give

rise to federal question jurisdiction for the purposes of removal,
as Respondent’s due process rights were obviously not raised in
3

Petitioner’s pleading in the state court, but such a claim, even
if brought as an independent action, is likely barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 161 L. Ed. 2d
454 (2005) (finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “cases
brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by
state-court
proceedings

judgments
commenced

rendered
and

before

inviting

the

district

district
court

court

review

and

rejection of those judgments”).
Thus, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this landlord-tenant action.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS
this action to New York State District Court, Suffolk County.

The

Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this action and mark this
matter CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT_______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

August 26, 2013
Central Islip, NY

4