ANDERSON v. STERN & EISENBERG, P.C.
2:24-cv-11198
D.N.J.May 27, 2025Background
- Lydia Annella Anderson, proceeding pro se, sued Stern & Eisenberg, P.C. and the Township of South Orange Village alleging illegal eviction and removal of her property following lengthy foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings.
- Plaintiff filed for in forma pauperis (IFP) status and submitted an amended complaint asserting violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and attacking the legitimacy of the underlying foreclosure and eviction.
- Anderson sought injunctive relief to prevent removal of her possessions, reinstatement of property ownership, damages for loss of property, and punitive damages.
- Plaintiff claimed the law firm acted without ownership interest and that the Township aided and abetted the eviction, also stopping mail delivery; she argued these acts violated her federal civil rights.
- Her allegations include claims pursuant to Section 1983 for constitutional violations, as well as a purported claim under federal foreclosure protections, though she was not a tenant.
- The court granted IFP status but conducted sua sponte review for subject matter jurisdiction and sufficiency of the pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction & Rooker-Feldman | Anderson's eviction and the foreclosure process violated her rights and should be overturned | Prior state court rulings are final; federal court lacks authority to review or overturn them | Court lacks jurisdiction; claims relating to eviction/foreclosure dismissed with prejudice |
| Constitutional Claims under § 1983 | Law firm and Township violated her Fourth & Fourteenth Amendment rights | Law firm is not a "person" under § 1983; Township was not acting under any policy or custom | Claims not adequately pleaded; dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim |
| Application of Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (PTFA) | Invoked Act as basis for wrongful eviction | Plaintiff was not a tenant, but mortgagor; Act inapplicable | PTFA does not apply; no claim stated |
| Sufficiency of the Pleading | Complaint alleges illegal removal of property, civil rights violations | Allegations are conclusory and insufficiently specific | Fails to state a claim; dismissed without prejudice (except barred claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (neither a State nor its officials in official capacity are 'persons' under § 1983)
- Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs. New York City, 436 U.S. 658 (municipality only liable under § 1983 for acts taken under official policy or custom)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must state a plausible claim to relief with factual specificity)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (a complaint requires sufficient factual allegations to give defendants fair notice of the claims)
- Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (attorneys are not state actors when performing traditional functions for § 1983 claims)