Stewart et al v. Lake et al

Filing 2

OPINION & ORDER: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h) (3) requires a Court to dismiss an action if it "determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction." Moreover, a district court has the inherent authority to sua spont e dismiss a complaint as frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan, PART ONE on 3/20/2017) (anc) Modified on 3/20/2017 (anc).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case 1:09-md-02013-PAC Document ------------------------------ X 57 Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 45 ELLIE STEWART, JANETTE P. : BOWEN, CHARLES SIDDEN, MICHAEL : USDC SDNY DOUGLAS, YVONNE SINGLETON, : DOCUMENT LEVEDA CURRY, GEANE HEWITT : ELECTRONICALLY FILED GITTENS, DELILAH BURROWES, : DOC #: _________________ DEDRIE E. PARIS, IDRISSA GAYE, : DATE FILED: 03/20/2017 : and DEBORAH ALEX-SAUNDERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT : SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiffs, : -----------------------------------------------------------x :: In re FANNIE MAE 2008 SECURITIES 08 Civ. 7831 (PAC) -against:: LITIGATION 09 MD 2013 (PAC) :: MARIANNE LAKE, ROBERT BENTLEY, : : No. 16 Misc. 351 (P1) OPINION & ORDER OPINION & ORDER JAMES MACKEY, JOHN GERSPACH, : -----------------------------------------------------------x BRUCE R. THOMPSON, ALEEM : GILLANI, BRUCE ROSE, DARYL : BIBLE, KELLY KING, JOHN : SHREWSBERRY, JOHN CROTTY, United States District Judge: V. BRITTI, : HONORABLE PAUL A. CHRISTOPHER HALMY, JANET : : MCCLUSKY, PAUL INCE, LEWIS HOWARD WISHBA, TAJ J. BINDRA, : BACKGROUND1 ANDY CECERE, STEFAN KRAUSE, : : MARCUS SCHENCK, and MARK The early years of this decade saw a boom in home financing which was fueled, among HELMY, : : other things, by low interest rates and lax credit conditions. New lending instruments, such as Defendants. : ------------------------------ X subprime mortgages (high credit risk loans) and Alt-A mortgages (low-documentation loans) JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: kept the boom going. Borrowers played a role too; they took on unmanageable risks on the On September 29, 2016, pro se plaintiffs filed an “Abstract assumption that the market would continue to rise and that refinancing options would always be of Judgment and Statement of Claim Collateral Estoppel and the available in the future. Lending discipline was lacking in the system. Mortgage originators did Administrative Process” in Part One of this Court. These not hold these high-risk mortgage loans. Rather than carry the rising risk on their books, the plaintiffs have previously filed substantially similar originators sold their loans into the secondary mortgage market, often as securitized packages complaints in the Eastern District of New York, Mele v. Fed. known as mortgage-backed securities (“MBSs”). MBS markets grew almost exponentially. Res. Bd., Case No. 14 Civ. 7425, and in this Court, Stewart v. But then the housing bubble burst. In 2006, the demand for housing dropped abruptly Lake, Case No. 16 Civ. 2684. In each of these cases, the Court and home prices began to fall. In light of the changing housing market, banks modified their lending practices and became unwilling to refinance home mortgages without refinancing. 1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references cited as “(¶ _)” or to the “Complaint” are to the Amended Complaint, dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to comply with Federal Rule of Procedure 8, which governs pleadings in federal court. See Stewart, No. 16 Civ. 2684, ECF No. 16; Mele, No. 14 Civ. 7425, ECF No. 23. Review of the “Abstract of Judgment and Statement of Claim Collateral Estoppel and the Administrative Process” reveals the same infirmities present in the complaints dismissed in plaintiffs’ other actions filed in this Circuit: lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to comply with Federal Rule of Procedure 8. Frankly, this document is incoherent. It fails to include either a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” or a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(2). Mindful as the Court is that these litigants appear pro se, the Court construes this document liberally. Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Even so, the only basis identified for subject matter jurisdiction is the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. But “[t]he Declaratory Judgment Act does not expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts.” Nike, Inc. v. Already, LLC, 663 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2011). Moreover, neither federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, exists 2 First, while the document lists several federal statutes, here. it fails to identify any specific facts or causes of action from which the Court may infer federal question jurisdiction. Second, the document includes a list of plaintiffs' and defendants' residences, indicating a lack of complete diversity as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); See Briarpatch Ltd. v. Phx. Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 302 (2d Cir. 2004) ("The citizenship requirement for diversity jurisdiction has been interpreted to mean complete diversity so that each plaintiff's citizenship must be different from the citizenship of each defendant."). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h) (3) requires a Court to dismiss an action if it "determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction." Moreover, a district court has the inherent authority to sua sponte dismiss a complaint as frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York March 2 0 , 2 017 sp~l te~ ~ (~ John F. Keenan United States District Judge PART ONE 3

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?