Gonzalez v. Ocwen Home Loan Servicing

• Decision Date: 25 February 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:14–CV–53 CSH.
• Citation: 74 F.Supp.3d 504
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: Luis GONZALEZ and Sonia Gonzalez, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN HOME LOAN SERVICING, Sand Canyon Corporation, Dale M. Sugimoto, Fabiola N. Camperi, Matthew A. Engel, William S. Smith, Leopold & Associates, Option One Mortgage Corporation, American Home Mortgage Service, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005–OPT3, Hunt Leibert Jacobson PC, Benjamin T. Staskiewicz, S. Bruce Fair, Esq., Jon Doe, Jan Doe, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Valerie Nicole Doble, Defendants.

74 F.Supp.3d 504

Luis GONZALEZ and Sonia Gonzalez, Plaintiffs

v.OCWEN HOME LOAN SERVICING, Sand Canyon Corporation, Dale M. Sugimoto, Fabiola N. Camperi, Matthew A. Engel, William S. Smith, Leopold & Associates, Option One Mortgage Corporation, American Home Mortgage Service, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005–OPT3, Hunt Leibert Jacobson PC, Benjamin T. Staskiewicz, S. Bruce Fair, Esq., Jon Doe, Jan Doe, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Valerie Nicole Doble, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:14–CV–53 CSH.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed Feb. 25, 2015.

Sonia Gonzalez, East Windsor, CT, pro se.

Valerie N. Doble, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP Boston, MA, for Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 16, 2014, pro se Plaintiffs Luis Gonzalez and Sonia Gonzalez commenced this action against various defendant mortgage companies, banks, and individuals (counsel to and executives for said mortgage companies and banks), alleging violations of the United States Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”), “banking fraud,” and conspiracy with respect to the foreclosed mortgage of 54 Abbe Road, East Windsor, Connecticut (the “East Windsor Property”).¹ Doc. 1. This is the latest of three federal actions Plaintiffs have filed requesting redress from a Connecticut state court's order of foreclosure on the East Windsor Property. Two such prior federal actions were dismissed by this Court. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Capital One Mortgage Corp., No. 3:12–cv–01470 (CSH) (dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Gonzalez v. United States, 3:13–cv–650 (CSH) (dismissed for lack of proper service, failure to prosecute, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and in light of the bar of the Rooker –Feldman doctrine).

In the case at bar, upon analysis of the pertinent complaint and the court record in this case, the Court finds that the operative complaint—the Amended Complaint [Doc. 9]—is properly subject to dismissal on numerous grounds. First, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in that there is neither a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal statute, i.e., no “federal question,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Furthermore, were the Court to find that either basis for subject matter jurisdiction existed, the action is still barred by the Rooker –Feldman doctrine. That doctrine “directs federal courts to abstain from considering claims when ... (1) the plaintiff lost in state court, (2) the plaintiff complains of injuries caused by the state court judgment, (3) the plaintiff invites district court review of that judgment, and (4) the state court judgment was entered before the plaintiff's federal suit commenced.” McKithen v. Brown, 626 F.3d 143, 154 (2d Cir.2010). In the present case, Plaintiffs' allegations are inextricably intertwined with prior state court judgments, such that their federal claim would succeed only if the state court wrongly decided the issues. Under these circumstances, the Rooker –Feldman doctrine bars the action. In short, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to resolve Plaintiffs' requests for relief and must dismiss the action.

Second, alternative bases for dismissal warrant dismissal of this action. Specifically, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and have failed to serve and/or prosecute their action for more than six months, each of which constitutes grounds for involuntary dismissal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) ; Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) ; and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 41(a).

II. BACKGROUND

As this Court previously recounted in Gonzalez v. Option One Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:12–CV–1470 (CSH), on July 29, 2005, Plaintiff Luis Gonzalez signed a note (the “Note”) promising to pay the lender, Option One Mortgage Corporation (“Option One”), $258,750.000. Plaintiffs executed a Mortgage in favor of Option One, relating to the East Windsor Property, to secure the Note.² Plaintiffs subsequently defaulted on this Mortgage Loan. As a result, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”), as trustee and holder of the Note, accelerated the balance due.³

On May 19, 2010, Deutsche Bank, by and through its counsel, Hunt Leibert Jacobsen, PC, initiated a foreclosure action against Plaintiffs in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Gonzalez, No. HHD–CV–07–6001411–S. Deutsche Bank obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure in that action on July 28, 2011.⁴ See Gonzalez v. Option One Mortgage Corp., No. 3:12–CV–1470 (CSH), Doc. 23, Ex. A. The final law day was set for September 26, 2011 [Doc. 8, Ex. D (“Foreclosure Docket and August 8, 2011 Order”) ]. On September 29, 2011, title to the Property became conclusively vested in Deutsche Bank as Trustee, and all of Plaintiffs' interest was extinguished.⁵

A Certificate of Foreclosure was recorded on November 23, 2011. See Doc. 8, Ex. E (“Certificate of Foreclosure”).

Plaintiffs thereafter commenced an action in state court, seeking to avoid foreclosure, regarding the Mortgage Loan on the East Windsor Property against Option One, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“American Home Mortgage”), Deutsche Bank, the Hunt Leibert Jacobson law firm, and two individual attorneys in that firm, Benjamin Staskiewicz, and S. Bruce Fair.⁶ See Gonzalez v. Option One Mortgage Corp., No. HHD–CV–11–5035882–S. In that action, alleging fraud and mistreatment with respect to the Mortgage Loan, Defendants Hunt Leibert Jacobson, PC, and Attorneys Benjamin Staskiewicz and S. Bruce Fair (collectively the “Hunt Leibert Defendants”), filed motions to strike and for judgment.See id., Doc. 4–5 (docket sheet of state action). On March 5, 2012, the state court granted the motion to strike [Doc. 105.86]; and on August 9, 2012, that court granted the motion for judgment in favor of the Hunt Leibert Defendants [Doc. 107.86]. Option One thereafter filed a motion to dismiss [Doc. 144], which was granted on September 10, 2013; and judgment of dismissal as to Option One entered on that date [Doc. 144.87]. The state court ultimately entered a general “Judgment Without Trial” for defendants [Doc. 154.87, dated 9/10/2013].

Plaintiffs thereafter filed three actions in federal court, including the one at bar. In the first action, Gonzalez v. Option One Mortgage Corp., No. 3:12–cv–01470 (CSH), 2014 WL 2475893 (D.Conn. June 3, 2014), this Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., in that there was no diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendants and no federal question arising under the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1331, respectively. In particular, the Court found that Plaintiffs and at least three of the Defendants were citizens of Connecticut. Furthermore, despite Plaintiffs' references to several federal statutes, they had failed to set forth any relevant facts giving rise to either a federal statutory or constitutional claim. Therefore, the Court lacked a basis upon which to exercise federal jurisdiction.

The Court also explained that even if there had been “diversity of citizenship” or “federal question” grounds to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, the action would still be subject to dismissal in that it was barred by the Rooker –Feldman doctrine (in light of Plaintiffs' previous losses in state court on the same facts and issues presented in federal court) and failed to set forth any valid claim upon which relief could be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)

Thereafter, in Gonzalez v. United States, No. 3:13–cv–650 (CSH), 2014 WL 3738179 (D.Conn. July 29, 2014), this Court once again dismissed Plaintiffs' claims, this time in light of (1) Plaintiffs' failure to serve the summons and Complaint upon the Defendant United States and (2) Plaintiff's failure to prosecute the action since its inception. The Court explained that even if it were to allow Plaintiffs, as pro se litigants, additional time to cure those defects, their “Tort Claims Complaint” was “not only vague and incomprehensible in its language,” but also “based on a patently meritless legal theory and wholly ‘frivolous,’ as that term is used with respect to legally impossible claims.” 2014 WL 3738179, at *7. Moreover, Plaintiffs' attempt to set forth a claim under the Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), was also not possible at law under the particular circumstances of the case. Id. Lastly, Plaintiffs' claims “with respect to their East Windsor property, asserting claims regarding foreclosed property for which they received unfavorable rulings in state court and which were previously dismissed in federal court,” were also “barred by the Rooker –Feldman doctrine.” Id.

In the case at bar, the third federal action Plaintiffs have filed in response to the Connecticut state court foreclosure on the East Windsor property, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint is properly subject to dismissal on the same grounds that led to dismissal of their prior actions before this Court.⁷ Namely, Plaintiffs have failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction, and have, in fact, filed this action in violation of the Rooker –Feldman doctrine. Moreover, Plaintiffs have: (1) failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) ; (2) failed to make proper service of the complaint and summons upon the Defendants, Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) ; and (3) failed to prosecute their action, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) ; D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 41(a).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

1. No Federal Question or Diversity of Citizenship

First and foremost, the Court must examine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction in this...