45 F. Supp. 3d 229
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- In 1999 MTI (Manti’s Transportation) purchased buses financed by Associates; MTI later returned a defective fleet and ceased operations. Associates re-financed MTI on Nov. 18, 1999 (Modification, Security Agreement, and Release).
- Judge Block (Manti I) granted summary judgment to Associates in 2002, enforcing the Release and awarding Associates money for breach of later security agreements; final judgment entered and was not timely appealed or vacated.
- Plaintiffs brought Manti II (2006) seeking to vacate the Manti I judgment under Rule 60; the court dismissed Manti II in 2008 as time-barred and for failure to plead fraud on the court; the court warned of sanctions for further duplicative filings.
- Manti filed this pro se federal suit (Instant Action, 2013) against GECC (successor to Citicapital), CT Lines, and Patricia Kenner, alleging newly discovered title documents show fraud and seeking vacatur of prior rulings and monetary relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; CT Lines/Kenner also moved for Rule 11 sanctions. The Court treated MTI’s claims as subject to dismissal for lack of counsel (corporation cannot proceed pro se).
- The Court dismissed the Complaint with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)), granted sanctions for repetitive and frivolous litigation, and entered a protective order and show-cause re: filing injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity/federal question) | Manti claimed complete diversity (argued CT Lines/Kenner domiciliary elsewhere) and invoked federal questions (RICO, civil-rights, due process) | Defendants argued no complete diversity (all parties New York citizens) and that federal claims were conclusory/frivolous | No diversity: plaintiff failed to prove different domiciles; federal claims not colorable; dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether Rule 60(d) independent action/fraud on the court supports vacatur of prior judgments | Manti asserted newly discovered title documents show fraud on the court by GECC/Associates and warrant reopening Manti I/Manti II | Defendants argued the new documents do not show fraud on the court, claims are time‑barred, and plaintiffs were negligent in not discovering earlier | Rule 60(d) relief denied: evidence does not show fraud on the court or meet independent-action equitable standards; claims/time-bar relief dismissed with prejudice |
| Preclusion/res judicata/collateral estoppel re: CT Lines/Kenner claims (sale/possession of buses 1999–2009) | Manti argued state-court decisions did not adjudicate CT Lines’ later sale of buses (2008–09) and these are new acts | Defendants argued issues were litigated in state court and federal court lacks jurisdiction to reopen state decisions; alternatively statutes of limitations and preclusion apply | Dismissed: federal court lacks jurisdiction over state-case issues; claims precluded or time‑barred; dismissal with prejudice |
| Sanctions, protective order, injunction against future filings | Manti contended his filings are based on new evidence and denied improper motive | Defendants sought Rule 11 fees, filing injunction, and prohibition on contacting Kenner/principals | Sanctions granted: counsel to submit fees; Manti ordered to show cause why filing injunction should not issue; enjoined from contacting Kenner/CT Lines’ principals; protective order entered |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (parties invoking diversity bear burden of establishing jurisdiction)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (principal place of business test for corporate citizenship)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Campaniello Imports, Ltd. v. Saporiti Italia, S.p.A., 117 F.3d 655 (standards for independent-action Rule 60 relief)
- King v. First Am. Investigations, Inc., 287 F.3d 91 (fraud on the court standard; clear and convincing proof)
- Gleason v. Jandrucko, 860 F.2d 556 (allegations of nondisclosure in discovery do not justify independent Rule 60 action)
- Paddington Partners v. Bouchard, 34 F.3d 1132 (extraordinary relief standard for reopening judgments)
- Safir v. U.S. Lines Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (factors for imposing filing injunctions)
- Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121 (courts may enjoin vexatious litigants)
- Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155 (restriction on future filings for litigants with vexatious history)