Serna v. Cooksey
| Decision Date | 27 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 20-0689 JB/KRS,CIV 20-0689 JB/KRS |
| Parties | EMMA SERNA and MIKE SERNA, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM COOKSEY, DANIEL WHITE, DAVID WEBSTER and MARGETTE WEBSTER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court, under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, on: (i) Plaintiffs' Motion Daniel White in Violation of The Mike R. Serna Irrevocable Trust, filed August 3, 2020 (Doc. 4)("Motion for Violation"); (ii) Plaintiff's [sic] Request Supplemental Jurisdiction in State District Case No. CV-2020-03290, filed August 17, 2020 (Doc. 8)("Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction"); (in) Defendant Daniel White's Motion to Dismiss, filed August 18, 2020 (Doc. 9)("Motion to Dismiss"); (iv) Plaintiffs' Removal of Civil Proceedings in State Court into Federal Court Pursuant to Title 28 U.S. Code 1367, filed September 2, 2020 (Doc. 17)("Notice of Removal"); and (v) Defendant Daniel White's Motion to Remand, filed September 16, 2020 (Doc. 33)("Motion to Remand"). Plaintiffs Emma Serna and Mike Serna appear pro se. For the reasons set out below, the Court will: (i) dismiss Emma Serna's claims against Defendants David Webster and Margette Webster without prejudice for failure to comply with the filing restrictions imposed by the Court; (ii) grant White's Motion to Dismiss; (iii) deny the Motion for Violation; (iv) grant White's Motion to Remand; and (v) deny the Sernas' Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction.
The Sernas filed a Complaint for Misrepresentations, Void Judgment Deceptive Dealings, Nonconsensual Lien & Lis Pendens, Unjust Enrichment, and Injunctive Relief, filed July 10, 2020 (Doc. 4)("Complaint"). The Sernas allege:
On April, 2019, Margette and David Webster, through their attorney, Daniel White, filed a civil lawsuit in state district court, against Mike Serna and Emma Serna, individually, and Emma Serna, as trustee of the Mike R. Serna Irrevocable Living Trust. The Mike R. Serna Irrevocable Living Trust owns all assets of Mike Serna and Emma Serna. The Websters sued to foreclose on the "irrevocable Living Trust Property, but they don't understand or refuse to understand that the Irrevocable Living trust will not be a party to any lawsuit. The Plaintiff motioned the judge to dismiss the case because the Websters want to foreclose on a property that is owned by the "irrevocable Trust, and with a "Void" judgment, and this state court refuses to sign an Order that states the Judgment is "Void".
Complaint at 5. The Sernas also make the following allegations regarding White:
Attorney White, in his voluminous filed pleadings, was trying to force the [state] Court to make the trustee disclose the benefactor's personal information ... Daniel White agreed with the Plaintiff, in the first hearing in state district court, then when the stenographer wrote up the minutes of the hearing, she left out Attorney White saying, that the award is void. As of today, he says that the award is not void. The Plaintiff proved that the award is void. This attorney has lied to the judge, and has shown candor towards the tribunal, and has refused to correct his misrepresentations ... Defendant Attorney White filing a complaint to foreclose on the Trust property Without a judgment or the Plaintiffs ever owning any money to the Websters. Presenting to the tribunal a arbitration award that has so many errors and Trying to pass this (5) year old award that is invalid to foreclose on property That has done no wrong doing to the Defendants ... Defendant Attorney Daniel White is demonstrating candor towards the tribunal by entering a judgment that is made out to a 'Margaret Webster", and Margette Webster hand wrote "a/k/a Margette Webster in. Both Defendants White and Margette Webster have induced fraud into the courts, and committed a misrepresentation of fact, and either had the knowledge of the falsity of the representation or recklessness of their action.
Complaint at 7-12. The Plaintiffs conclude that "[a] fair trial will not be had in state district court," and contend that the "Plaintiffs deserve restitution from the Defendants." Complaint at 14.
The Sernas subsequently filed a Motion for Violation, which states:
The Plaintiffs, Pro Se, having received a motion, from Daniel White, to prevent Mike Serna, from his right to his established Irrevocable Trust. White is demanding that the trustee divulge all details of the Irrevocable Trust, and this is for the benefit of David and Margette Webster's unjust enrichment. Daniel White is requesting the state judge to sanction the Plaintiffs for not disclosing all documents of the Irrevocable Living Trust. White has a copy of the County Assessor's yearly tax role that discloses all of the Plaintiff's property belongs to the Irrevocable Trust ... Emma Serna's inheritance was also garnished, with the aid of William Cooksey, who is BBVA Compass Banks' [sic] attorney, and David and Margette Webster's attorney.
White's response to the Motion for Violation states:
as stated in greater detail in Mr. White's Motion to Dismiss, both the Sernas' Complaint and their Motion [for Violation] should be rejected for the following reasons: (1) the Complaint and Motion are barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (2) Plaintiffs did not comply with the filing restrictions imposed by the Honorable James O. Browning; and (3) both the Complaint and the Motion are legally deficient.
Defendant Daniel White's Response to Plaintiffs' "Motion Daniel White in Violation of the Mike R. Serna Irrevocable Trust" [sic], filed August 18, 2020 (Doc. 10). The Sernas did not file a reply.
The Sernas ask the Court to "exercise[e] this court[']s supplemental jurisdiction over a claim brought into state district court against Margette and David Webster." Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction at 1. "The Serna Party filed a suit to foreclose on Margette and David Webster's property, for the money owed, on the remodel job that Emma Serna's business completed for Margette Webster, a total of $94,000.00, and accruing at 18% per annum." Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction at 1. It appears that the Sernas want the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over two state-court cases based on their request: "The Plaintiffs hereby request that Federal Court file a seize all rulings in case CV-2019-04800 and case CV-2020-03290 until the discovery, and all claims are resolved, in this court." Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction at 3.
White's response to the Sernas' Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction states:
Mr. White incorporates the arguments contained in his Motion to Dismiss into this response, and urges the Court to both deny the Serna' Motion and dismiss the Complaint, with prejudice, for the reasons stated therein. Specifically, as stated in greater detail in Mr. White's Motion to Dismiss, both the Sernas' Complaint and their Motion should be rejected for the following reasons: (1) the Complaint and Motion are barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (2) Plaintiffs did not comply with the filing restrictions imposed by the Honorable James O. Browning; and (3) both the Complaint and the Motion are legally deficient.
Defendant Daniel White's Response to "Plaintiff's Request Supplemental Jurisdiction in State District Case No. CV-2020-03290" [sic], filed August 26, 2020 (Doc. 14)("Response to Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction"). White also asks "for the implementation and enforcement of filing restrictions against the Sernas to put an end to their vexatious filings." Response to Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction at 2. The Sernas did not file a reply to White's Response to Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction.
White filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint "for the following reasons: (1) the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (2) Plaintiffs did not comply with the filing restrictions imposed by the Honorable James O. Browning; and (3) the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Motion to Dismiss at 1.
Defendant White argues the Complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, based on three prior lawsuits: (i) Serna v. Webster, No. 1:17-cv-00020-JB-JHR, filed January 9, 2017 ("Serna I"); Serna v. White, No. 1:20-cv-00299-MV-SCY, filed April 2, 2020 ("Serna II"); and (iii) an "underlying state court lawsuit Emma Serna filed against David Webster and Margette Webster." Motion to Dismiss at 2-3. The Motion to Dismiss does not identify the case name or number of the "underlying state court lawsuit," but states that the order dismissing the "underlying state court lawsuit" is "attached as Ex. E." Motion to Dismiss at 3. White's counsel did not attach the order dismissing the underlying state court lawsuit to the Motion to Dismiss.
White argues that the prior complaints "operate to bar the present case under the doctrineof res judicata, or claim preclusion," because: (i) the prior three cases "ended with judgments on the merits;" (ii) "the parties are identical or in privity;" (iii) "the instant lawsuits and Prior Complaints 1, 2, and 3 are based on the same cause of action;" and (iv) "the Sernas had a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims" in the prior cases. Motion to Dismiss at 3. White correctly notes that in Serna II, the Court dismissed the federal law claims with prejudice, but dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice. See Motion to Dismiss at 2. See also Serna II, Memorandum Opinion and Order of Dismissal at 6, filed June 30, 2020 (Doc. 18)( Plaintiffs Emma Serna and Mike Serna's federal law claims with prejudice and dismissing their state-law claims without prejudice). White also states that "Plaintiff Emma Serna was a plaintiff in all four lawsuits, and her husband Mike Serna was both in privity with her and also a named party to two of the four lawsuits," but does not explain how Mike...
To continue reading
Request your trial