Riley v. Donatelli

• Decision Date: 03 August 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:16-cv-898-J-34JBT
• Parties: BARBARA J. RILEY, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL D. DONATELLI, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

BARBARA J. RILEY, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL D. DONATELLI, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-898-J-34JBT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

August 3, 2017

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on several motions. Plaintiff Barbara J. Riley, pro se, initiated this action on July 13, 2016. See Complaint Verified and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 1; Complaint). The Court promptly struck the Complaint on July 15, 2016, for failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), see Order (Doc. 4), and on August 19, 2016, Riley filed an Amended Complaint Verified and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 5; Amended Complaint). In her Amended Complaint, Riley asserts claims under "42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988" against Defendants Daniel D. Donatelli, Jennifer E. Traystman, Curtis V. Trinko, Joseph N. Froehlich, Jonathan E. Samon, Brian P. Scibetta, and Patricia A. Rivers.¹ Id. at 1. The Court has dismissed Riley's claims against Jennifer Traystman, Jonathan Samon, Brian Scibetta, and Joseph N. Froehlich without prejudice, see Order (Doc. 49), entered December 21, 2016; Order (Doc. 68), entered February 24, 2017, such that Daniel D. Donatelli, Curtis V. Trinko, and Patricia A. Rivers (Defendants) are the only remaining Defendants to this action. These three Defendants have each filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b). See Defendant, Daniel D. Donatelli, Esquire's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Verified Complaint, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 13; Donatelli Motion), filed September 29, 2016;² Defendant Curtis V. Trinko, Esquire's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Verified Complaint, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 17; Trinko Motion), filed October 13, 2016; Pro Se Defendant Patricia A. Rivers' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Verified Complaint, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 90; Rivers Motion), filed May 5, 2017, (collectively, Motions). Riley responded to each of these Motions. See Plaintiff's Response Verified re 13 Unlicensed Attorney Ramsey's Unsigned Empty Motion to Dismiss with Memorandum of Legal Authorities in Support and 2 Exhibits #1 and #2 (Doc. 34; Response to Donatelli), filed November 16, 2016; Plaintiff's Response Verified re 17 Trinko's Empty Motion to Dismiss with Memorandum of Legal Authorities in Support and 2 Exhibits A and B (Doc. 35; Response to Trinko);³ Pro Se Plaintiff's Response re: Pro Se Defendant Patricia A. Rivers' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Verified Complaint Not Filed Yet with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 92; Response to Rivers),⁴ filed May 10, 2017 (collectively, Responses). Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.⁵

I. Background

This case arises out of a dispute over real property located in New York which, according to Riley, Defendants Daniel D. Donatelli and Patricia A. Rivers stole from Riley's "ancestor-mother" in 2004 through "frauds, forged wills and schemes." See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 13-14; Riley Aff., Ex. A. Riley alleges that her mother died in 2005 and since that time, Donatelli and Rivers "swore to all that there is a Will and that the 2003 newly rebuilt premises was willed to [Rivers]." Amended Complaint ¶¶ 19-20. In addition, Riley alleges that over the span of ten years from 2004 until 2014, Donatelli and Rivers also "encumbered the stolen real property with 5 Deeds and 13 Mortgages, Assignments and Agreements . . . ." Id. ¶ 25. Riley asserts that she "recorded and filed" a deed to this property in 2015. Id. ¶ 28. Thereafter, on August 26, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Riley filed a "Quiet Title action" against Rivers, as well as various mortgage holders or lenders with an interest in the property. Id. ¶¶ 29, 35; Riley Aff., Ex. B. While that lawsuit was still pending, Riley initiated the instant action in this Court which appears to stem from the litigation conduct of the opposing parties or their attorneys in the New York lawsuit. Although the Amended Complaint contains no specific details, Riley generally accuses Rivers, Donatelli, and Trinko, Rivers' attorney in the New York lawsuit, of making false and fraudulent statements, and filing false and falsified documents, in connection with those proceedings.⁶ See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 31-35, 42-54. According to Riley, by making false statements and filing false documents, Defendants "interfered" in her lawsuit and violated her Constitutional rights. Id. ¶ 58, 66, 82, 94, 98. In addition, Riley maintains that Defendants conspired together to violate her rights and deprive her of the real property, and that Trinko and Donatelli are engaged in a pattern of such conduct. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8, 86-87, 90, 114, 118.

Notably, Riley alleges that Rivers, Trinko and Donatelli are citizens of New York. Id. ¶ 4. Indeed, Riley identifies Trinko and Donatelli as New York lawyers with offices in New York. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. As is evident from the foregoing, the actions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in New York, in connection with the lawsuit that Riley filed in New York, which pertained to real property located in New York. The only connection to the State of Florida alleged in the Amended Complaint is that Riley is a citizen of Florida, whose mailing address is in Florida, and that Riley recorded and filed her deed to the property "[b]y operation of Florida laws." Id. ¶¶ 4, 5, 28. Nonetheless, Riley maintains that venue in this Court is proper "pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that the cause of action arose within the Middle District of Florida and the Eastern District of New York Electronically and through the United States Mail." Id. ¶ 3.

II. Summary of the Arguments

In her Motion, Rivers moves for dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), (3), and (5). See Rivers Motion at 1. Specifically, Rivers argues that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over her, this District is not a proper venue for Riley's lawsuit, and Riley failed to properly serve Rivers. Id. Rivers maintains that she has had no "personal or business contacts" with Riley or anyone else in the Middle District of Florida, and has never visited the State of Florida. Id. at 3; see also Rivers Decl. ¶ 2. In addition, Rivers maintains that venue in this Court is not proper because "[n]one of the factual activities alleged in the [Amended Complaint] occurred in the Middle District of Florida," "Defendant Rivers is not a Florida resident," and "the real property at issue in this action is located in Queens, New York." See Rivers Motion at 3; Rivers Decl. ¶ 3. As to service of process, Rivers maintains that the Affidavit of Service executed by the process server is false. See Motion at 1-2; Rivers Decl. ¶ 4. According to the Affidavit of Service (Doc. 57), filed on January 25, 2017, the process server left a copy of the summons and Amended Complaint with Rivers' sister, Ivette Rivers, at Rivers' address, on October 22, 2016. See Affidavit of Service (Doc. 57), filed January 25, 2017. However, according to Rivers, the process server could not have accomplished service in this manner because Ivette Rivers does not live at Rivers' address and was not present at Rivers' home in October 2016. See Rivers Decl. ¶ 6.

In her Response, Riley contends that she effectuated proper service and that this action should be heard on the merits because she has a constitutional right to a jury trial and a "fraud on the court" occurred in New York. See generally Response to Rivers. In her Declaration, Riley also argues that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Rivers because Rivers' actions "affected [Riley's] civil rights in the Middle District of Florida and the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) using U.S. Mail, Wire, Computers and Telephones affecting interstate commerce for over a decade . . . ." See Riley Decl. ¶¶ 3, 17. Riley further maintains that Rivers knew Riley resided in Florida and that Rivers "has repeatedly undertaken actions against plaintiff Riley within the Middle District of Florida with regard to the allegations contained in the" Amended Complaint. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. Riley contends that as part of the New York lawsuit Rivers used the "U.S. Mail and Wire" to send court documents to Riley in Florida. Id. ¶ 7. Based on the foregoing, Riley argues that the Court should not dismiss her claims against Rivers.

In their Motions, Donatelli and Trinko seek dismissal on two grounds. Unlike Rivers, neither Donatelli nor Trinko assert a lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense to this case. Nonetheless, Donatelli and Trinko do contend that dismissal is warranted under Rule 12(b)(3) because this District is not a proper venue for this action. Specifically, Donatelli and Trinko argue that Defendants are not residents of Florida, all of the purportedly wrongful conduct occurred in New York, the property that is the subject of this dispute is located in New York, and the only purported connection to Florida is Riley's status as a Florida resident. See Trinko Motion at 7; Donatelli Motion at 9. In addition, Trinko and Donatelli argue that this action is due to be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Both Trinko and Donatelli contend that Riley fails to state a claim under § 1983 because Defendants did not act "under color of state law." See Trinko Motion at 8-9; Donatelli Motion at 10-11. They further maintain that Riley's claims premised on conspiracy, fraud or alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act are due to be dismissed because Riley failed to plead these claims with the requisite particularity. See Trinko Motion at 9-12; Donatelli Motion at 13-16. Last, Donatelli and Trinko argue that the Amended Complaint is vague and conclusory, and should be dismissed as an impermissible shotgun pleading in violation of Rules 8 and 11. See Trinko Motion at 11-12; Donatelli Motion at 17-19.

In her...