74 F. Supp. 3d 504
D. Conn.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Luis and Sonia Gonzalez (pro se) sued multiple mortgage companies, banks, law firms and individuals seeking relief from a Connecticut state-court foreclosure of 54 Abbe Road, East Windsor, CT. This was their third federal suit challenging the same foreclosure.
- State-court proceedings: Deutsche Bank obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure (title vested Sept. 29, 2011) and executions of ejectment were issued; a later state-court action by Plaintiffs to avoid foreclosure was dismissed.
- Procedural history in federal court: prior federal suits by Plaintiffs were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, failure to serve, failure to prosecute, and under Rooker–Feldman.
- In this action Plaintiffs invoked unusual bases for jurisdiction (a papal motu proprio and UNDRIP) and alleged fraud, predatory lending, conspiracy, and constitutional violations without factual detail.
- The court found multiple independent grounds for dismissal: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no federal question or complete diversity), application of the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, failure to state a claim, failure to effect service under Rule 4(m), and failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). Plaintiff Sonia Gonzalez also filed a Chapter 13 petition the same day as this suit; the bankruptcy filing did not stay this offensive filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (federal-question / diversity) | Jurisdiction allegedly based on a papal decree and UNDRIP; vague references to constitutional violations | No colorable federal statutory or constitutional claim; diversity destroyed because Plaintiffs and multiple defendants are Connecticut citizens; no amount-in-controversy alleged | No subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal required under Rule 12(h)(3) |
| Rooker–Feldman bar | Challenges to foreclosure and state-court rulings; alleges state-court judgments procured by fraud | Prior state-court foreclosure and dismissals are final or dispositive; federal court cannot review state judgments | Rooker–Feldman applies (all four factors met); federal court lacks jurisdiction to revisit state rulings |
| Failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)) | Pleads fraud, conspiracy, ‘‘bad banking practices,’’ constitutional and UNDRIP violations (without specific facts) | Plaintiff’s allegations are vague, legally impossible, and fail to plead elements of any cognizable claim | Complaint is frivolous/unintelligible and fails to state a plausible claim; sua sponte dismissal appropriate |
| Service and prosecution (Rule 4(m), Rule 41(b)) | Plaintiffs contended some defendants had prior knowledge; otherwise no explanation for lack of service | Plaintiffs failed to serve defendants within 120 days, filed improper discovery motions, and did not prosecute for months | Dismissal warranted for failure to effect service and failure to prosecute; additional time would be futile given jurisdictional and merit defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 1997) (courts must inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Da Silva v. Kinsho Int’l Corp., 229 F.3d 358 (2d Cir. 2000) (delineation of federal-question and diversity jurisdiction categories)
- McKithen v. Brown, 626 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2010) (articulation of the four-factor Rooker–Feldman test)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (clarification of Rooker–Feldman scope)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983) (Rooker–Feldman foundations)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1923) (federal courts cannot review state-court judgments)
- Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1989) (district courts’ authority to dismiss frivolous in forma pauperis suits)
- Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (pro se complaints must be construed liberally but must state plausible claims)