Frascatore v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB
| Decision Date | 04 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:22-cv-00212 (VAB) |
| Parties | RALPH FRASCATORE, Plaintiff, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY IN ITS CAPACITY AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF MATEWAN VENTURES TRUST SERIES 2018-1, WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES TRUST V-D, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, KEITH KEATING FULLER, ESQ., and WALTER M. SPADER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Ralph Frascatore (“Mr. Frascatore” or “Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, has sued Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not in its Individual Capacity but solely in its Capacity as Owner Trustee of Matewan Ventures Trust Series 2018-1 (“Matawin Ventures”[1]), Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Owner Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust V-D (“Wilmington Savings”), Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”), Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), Keith Keating Fuller, Esq. (“Mr. Fuller” or “Fuller”), and Judge Walter M. Spader (“Judge Spader”) (collectively the “Defendants”) asserting violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) and “Wrongful Foreclosure[.]” See Compl. at 9-12 ¶¶ 31-45, ECF No. 1 (Feb. 7, 2022) (Compl.).
Each Defendant, excluding Judge Spader, has filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Bank of America's Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 13 (Mar. 15, 2022) (“Bank of America Mot. to Dismiss”); Fannie Mae's Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 23 (Apr. 8, 2022) (“Fannie Mae Mot. to Dismiss”); Fuller's Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 24 (Apr. 20, 2022); Fuller's Mem. of Law in Supp. of his Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 25 (Apr. 20, 2022) (“Fuller Mot. to Dismiss”); and Wilmington Savings's Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 42 (Aug. 31, 2022) (“Wilmington Savings Mot. to Dismiss”).[2] Wilmington Savings and Fuller additionally moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(5) respectively. See Fuller Mot. to Dismiss at 1; Wilmington Savings Mot. to Dismiss at 1.
Mr Frascatore filed an omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss. See Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No 37 (Aug. 16, 2022) (“Opp'n Motion”). Fuller submitted a reply in support of his motion to dismiss. See Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss ECF No. 38 (Aug. 23, 2022) (“Fuller Reply”). Fannie Mae also submitted a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. See Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 44 (Sep. 2, 2022) (“Fannie Mae Reply”).
For the following reasons, Mr. Frascatore's claims against Judge Spader and the federal claims against all of the other Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Frascatore's remaining state law claim.
As a result, all of the motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants are GRANTED.
Mr. Frascatore allegedly suffered an adverse action from a Connecticut State Superior Court foreclosure judgment (“Foreclosure Judgment”). See Compl. at 1.[3]Wilmington Savings, through its counsel Mr. Fuller, allegedly initiated the foreclosure action (“Foreclosure Action” or “Foreclosure Proceeding”) in the County of Fairfield, Bridgeport. Id. at 1-2. State Superior Court Judge Walter M. Spader (“Judge Spader”), presided over the proceedings and rendered the Foreclosure Judgment. Id. at 2.
Wilmington Savings allegedly utilized “fraudulent practices” to obtain the Foreclosure Judgment. Id. at 4 ¶ 9. Specifically, during the Foreclosure Proceeding, Willington Savings, through its counsel, Mr. Fuller, allegedly offered into evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment an assignment of mortgage which was recorded on the Land Record of the Town of Trumbull. Id. at 7 ¶ 26. Mr. Frascatore allegedly went to the Trumbull Land Record Office and discovered that Wilmington savings was “not the servicer or owner” of Mr. Frascatore's mortgage. Id. at 7 ¶ 27. Rather, the assignment of mortgage allegedly showed that “[t]he Servicer is Bank of America, N.A. and the owner is Federal National Mortgage Association[.]” Id. at 7 ¶ 27.
Based on this information, Mr. Frascatore allegedly filed a motion to dismiss the Foreclosure Action “for lack of standing and lack subject matter jurisdiction . . . on November 11, 2021.” Id. at 8 ¶ 29. In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Frascatore allegedly “proved to the court” that Wilmington savings “was not the proper party in interest[]” and that Fannie Mae “own[ed] [the] mortgage and note[.]” Id. at 8 ¶ 30. According to Mr. Frascatore, Wilmington Savings, therefore, “had no standing to commence the foreclosure action and . . . Judge Spader . . . had no jurisdiction over the subject matter to enter any orders” in the Foreclosure Action. Id.
Judge Spader, notwithstanding the alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denied Mr. Frascatore's motion to dismiss “without a hearing . . . on November 23, 2021.” Id. at 8 ¶ 29. In so doing, Judge Spader allegedly “acted without authority to displace [Mr. Frascatore] from [his] family home and [Judge Spader] is actively working in conjunction with defendants Wilmington [Savings] and Fuller to illegally transfer ownership of the subject property.” Id. at 8 ¶ 30.
On February 7, 2022, Mr. Frascatore filed this lawsuit against the Defendants alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and “Wrongful Foreclosure[.]” Compl. at 9-12 ¶¶ 3145.
On February 22, 2022, Mr. Frascatore filed a return of service indicating he had served all Defendants. See First Return of Service, ECF No. 6.
One March 1, 2022, the Court entered an order noting that Mr. Frascatore's return of service was unsigned, did not include copies of the certified mail, and therefore was deficient. See Order, ECF No. 7.
On March 11, 2022, counsel appeared for Fannie Mae. See Notice of Appearance, ECF No. 8. On the same day, Fannie Mae filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to the Complaint. See Mot. For Extension of Time, ECF No. 9. The Court granted that motion on March 16, 2022. See Order, ECF No. 14.
On March 15, 2022, counsel appeared for Bank of America. See Notice of Appearance, ECF No. 11. On the same day, Bank of America filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See Bank of America Mot. to Dismiss.
On March 21, 2022, counsel appeared for Matawin Ventures. See Notice of Appearance, ECF No. 11. The next day, on March 22, 2022, Matawin Ventures filed a Notice of Joinder to Bank of America's motion to dismiss. See Notice of Joinder, ECF No. 16.
On March 22, Matawin Ventures filed a corrected Notice of Joinder to Bank of American's motion to dismiss. See Corrected Notice of Joinder, ECF No. 16 (“Corrected Notice of Joinder”). The Court granted that motion on March 23, 2022. See ECF No. 18.
On March 30, 2022, counsel appeared for Mr. Fuller. See Notice of Appearance, ECF No. 19. The next day, Mr. Fuller filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to the Complaint. See Mot. for Extension of Time, ECF No. 20. The Court granted that motion on April 1, 2022. See ECF No. 21.
On April 8, 2022, Fannie Mae filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See Fannie Mae Mot. to Dismiss.
On April 20, 2022, Mr. Fuller filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). See Fuller Mot. to Dismiss.
On July 6, 2022, counsel appeared for Wilmington Savings. See Notice of Appearance, ECF No. 32. On the same day, Mr. Fuller filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to the Complaint. See Mot. for Extension of Time, ECF No. 31. The Court granted that motion on July 11, 2022. See Order, ECF No. 33.
On July 27, 2022, the Court entered another order regarding service. See Order Re Service, ECF No. 34. Specifically, the Court noted that Mr. Frascatore did not cure the deficiency that the Court raised on March 1, 2022. Id. at 1. The Court further noted that Bank of America, Wilmington Savings, and Fuller have argued “improper service” as one of the bases for dismissal in their respective motions to dismiss. Id. The Court ordered Mr. Frascatore to file a properly executed return of service on or before August 12, 2022, and warned that failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this case. Id. at 2.
On August 9, 2022, Mr. Frascatore filed a signed return of service. See Summons, ECF No. 36.
On August 16, 2022, Mr. Frascatore filed his opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. See Opp'n Motion.
On August 23, 2022, Mr. Fuller filed a reply to in support of his motion to dismiss. See Fuller Reply.
On August 25, 2022, Fannie Mae filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. See Mot. for Extension of Time, ECF No. 39. The Court granted that motion on August 26, 2022. See Order, ECF No. 39.
On August 31, 2022, Wilmington Savings filed a second motion of extension of time to file responsive pleadings to the Complaint. See Mot. for Extension of Time, ECF No. 41. On the same day, Wilmington Savings filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See Wilmington Savings Mot. to Dismiss.
On September 2, 2022, Fannie Mae filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. Se...
To continue reading
Request your trial