United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19, 2016, Bank of New York Mellon (“Bank of
Mellon” or “Plaintiff”) sued Albertha
Fletcher (“Defendant”) in Connecticut Superior
Court seeking to foreclose on her home. Pl.'s Mot. to
Remand at 2, ECF No. 13.
Mellon now moves to remand this case to Connecticut Superior
following reasons, the Court VACATES its
Order from April 25, 2018, and GRANTS the
motion to remand.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
7, 2000, Ms. Fletcher allegedly purchased a residential
property located at 105 Garfield Avenue, New London,
Connecticut, 06320 (the “Property”). Not. of
Removal, ECF No.1-4. Ms. Fletcher allegedly executed a loan
of $50, 000 on December 7, 2000, from Countrywide Financial
Corporation (“Countrywide”) to make renovations
to the Property. Def. Pl.'s Mot. to Reopen Judgment at 4,
7, ECF No. 3. Sometime after December 2000, Ms. Fletcher
allegedly began receiving mortgage notices from Countrywide
seeking payment. Id. at 5. In December 2006, Ms.
Fletcher allegedly received a notice of foreclosure on the
Property for failure to pay the mortgage. Id. By
February 2007, Ms. Fletcher alleges she reinstated her
mortgage and began duly making payments. Id.
2016, Bank of Mellon commenced a foreclosure action against
Ms. Fletcher in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District
of New London. Pl.'s Mot. for Remand at 2. Ms. Fletcher
removed the case to federal court on March 26, 2018. Not. of
Removal. On March 26, 2018, Ms. Fletcher also filed a motion
to proceed in foruma pauperis.
April 20, 2018, Magistrate Judge William Garfinkel granted
Ms. Fletcher's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, and recommended that Ms. Fletcher's claim
be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). Recommended
Ruling, ECF. No 9. Ms. Fletcher timely filed an objection to
Magistrate Garfinkel's recommended ruling on May 08,
2018. Obj. to the Recommended Ruling, ECF No. 15. The Court
adopted the Recommended Ruling and dismissed the case on
April 25, 2018. Order Adopting Recommended Ruling, ECF No.
10. The Court now vacates its ruling adopting the
Mellon has also moved to remand this case to Connecticut
Superior Court. Pl.'s Mot. to Remand.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate
judge's recommended ruling to which an objection is made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3). Those portions of the recommended ruling that go
uncontested will be set aside “only for clear
error.” Staggers v. Colvin, No. 3:14-CV-717
JCH, 2015 WL 4751123, at *1 (D. Conn. Aug. 11, 2015) (citing
Campbell v. Astrue, 596 F.Supp.2d 446, 448 n.1 (D.
Conn. 2009)). The Court “may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” See 28 U.S.C. §
Mellon argues the removal of this case is improper because
Ms. Fletcher's removal is untimely under 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b), and she lacks a proper basis to invoke federal
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Pl.'s Mot. to
Remand at 5. Ms. Fletcher, on the other hand, argues
that her case has been properly removed to this Court because
the present foreclosure action should not have proceeded
since Bank of America, as Ms. Fletcher alleges, did not
comply with the terms of the settlement agreement from
United States v. Countrywide Financial Corporation,
No. CV1110540-PSG (AJWx), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150263 (C.D.
Cal. Dec. 28, 2011). Obj. to Mot. to Remand at 1, ECF No. 18.
Ms. Fletcher, therefore, argues that the terms of the
Countrywide Financial Corporation settlement
agreement provide this Court jurisdiction over the present
action. Def.'s Mot. to Retain Jurisdiction and
Enforce Settlement Agreement, ECF No.11. The Court agrees
with Bank of Mellon.