Nagessar v. Northeast Alliance Mortgage Banking Corp.
1:18-cv-06709
E.D.N.YJun 8, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Tarasmatti Nagessar filed this pro se action (Nov. 21, 2018) seeking to quiet title to 111 Euclid Ave., Brooklyn, alleging Defendant Northeast Alliance recorded fraudulent documents after Plaintiff retained it for a loan modification in 2014.
- This is Plaintiff’s third federal action concerning the property; two prior actions were dismissed (one voluntarily, one for failure to prosecute).
- Plaintiff served Defendant by publication after court approval; Defendant never appeared and the Clerk entered default on Jan. 17, 2020.
- Plaintiff moved for a default judgment; Magistrate Judge Reyes and the district court reviewed procedural compliance and the sufficiency of the pleadings.
- The court found diversity jurisdiction present but concluded Plaintiff’s allegations were conclusory and failed to identify or attach the allegedly fraudulent documents or otherwise plead fraud with particularity.
- The motion for default judgment was denied, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Plaintiff was granted 60 days to file an amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a default judgment should be entered | Nagessar argued default and entry of judgment because Defendant failed to appear after service by publication | No appearance or opposition; Defendant produced no defenses | Denied — default entered administratively but judgment requires sufficient pleaded claims showing liability |
| Whether the complaint states a quiet-title claim under NY RPAPL | Nagessar alleged ownership since 1995 and that Defendant recorded "fraudulent documents" encumbering title | No factual record from Defendant; court treats allegations as untested but not sufficient | Dismissed for failure to plead the nature/source of her title or facts supporting fraud; conclusory labels insufficient |
| Whether fraud allegations satisfy Rule 9(b) and pleading standards | Plaintiff claims documents were fraudulent and part of a scam | No detailed allegations about what documents, who signed, dates, or circumstances | Court held fraud allegations were conclusory and not pleaded with particularity; Iqbal plausibility standard applies |
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction | Plaintiff asserted diversity jurisdiction (NY citizen v. Texas corporation; property value > $75,000) | No contest recorded | Court found diversity jurisdiction satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rock Cmty. Church, Inc., 696 F. Supp. 2d 203 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (default judgments are not a matter of right and are disfavored)
- Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (default judgments are reserved for rare occasions)
- State St. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada, 374 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (standards governing entry of default judgment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (courts need not accept conclusory legal statements; plausibility pleading standard)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
- Joseph v. HDMJ Rest., Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 131 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (allegations in a default are deemed admitted but plaintiff must still show legal entitlement to relief)