United States District Court, D. Connecticut
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, CO., as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10, Plaintiff,
v.
WALTER REDDY, III. Defendant.
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND AND RECOMMENDED
RULING
VICTOR
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Walter
Reddy, III (“Defendant”), proceeding pro
se, filed a Notice of Removal on March 27, 2019, of two
Summary Process actions commenced by Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) in the
Connecticut Superior Court Housing Session of Norwalk. Both
actions were removed to this Court on the same day and relate
to the same property, which comprises a “Main
House” and an “In-Law Unit.”
For the
reasons that follow, the Court adopts Judge Garfinkel's
recommended ruling in both cases, GRANTING
the Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma
pauperis, but DISMISSING these cases
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Around
June 7, 2018, Deutsche Bank allegedly became the record owner
of 16 Briar Oak Drive, Weston, CT 06883, as a result of a
foreclosure action started under docket numbers
NWH-CV18-6004196-S and NWH-CV18- 6004197-S. See Rev.
State Compl. ¶ 1, Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
v. Reddy, No. 3:19-cv-461 (VAB), ECF No. 1-1 (Mar. 27,
2019) (“Main House Action”) and Rev. State Compl.
¶ 1, Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v.
Reddy, No. 3:19-cv-460 (VAB) (“In-Law Unit
Action”). Deutsche Bank alleges that the
Defendants' right to occupy the premises, which included
both the Main House and the In-Law Unit ended on November 5,
2018; that a notice to quit the premises was served; and that
the date to quit the premises passed in November 2018.
Compl.[1] ¶ 2-6.
On
February 13, 2019, Deutsche Bank brought summary process
actions against Walter Reddy, III, Scott Baker, Alexandra
Benderoth, Jodi Emidy, Taylor Flack and various Doe
Defendants, making claims for immediate possession of both
the Main House and the In-Law Unit of the Weston premises.
Id.
On
March 27, 2019, Walter Reddy, III, proceeding pro
se, filed Notices of Removal of both actions. Notice of
Removal, Main House Action, ECF No. 1 (Mar. 27, 2019); Notice
of Removal, Main House Action, ECF No. 1 (Mar. 27, 2019). In
all respects other than whether the filing refers to the Main
House or the In-Law Unit on the Weston premises, the grounds
for removal asserted by Mr. Reddy are the same.
Also on
March 27, 2019, Mr. Reddy filed identical “short
form” applications to proceed in forma
pauperis in both cases. Mot., Main House Action, ECF No.
2, (Mar. 27, 2019); Mot., In-Law Unit Action, ECF No. 2 (Mar.
27, 2019). Judge Garfinkel denied Mr. Reddy's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis in the In-Law Unit Action,
without prejudice to renewing the motion with a complete
financial affidavit. ECF No. 7 (Apr. 2, 2019).
On May
1, 2019, Mr. Reddy filed a new motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis in the In-Law Unit Action. ECF No.
8 (May 1, 2019).
On June
19, 2019, Deutsche Bank moved to remand both cases to state
court. Main House Action, ECF No. 7 (June 19, 2019); In-Law
Unit Action, ECF No. 10 (June 19, 2019).
On
October 22, 2019, Judge William I. Garfinkel issued a
Recommended Ruling in both cases, recommending that Mr.
Reddy's Complaint be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Rec. Ruling, In-Law Unit Action, ECF No. 13
(Oct. 22, 2019); Rec. Ruling, Main House Action, ECF No. 13
(Oct. 22, 2019). Judge Garfinkel stated that “[a]ny
objection must be filed within 14 days after service, ”
or by November 5, 2019. Rec. Ruling.
On
December 2, 2019, Mr. Reddy filed a Notice of Disability in
both actions. Notice of Disability, Main House Action, ECF
No. 14 (Dec. 2, 2019); Notice of Disability, In-Law Unit
Action, ECF No. 14 (Dec. 2, 2019).
Also on
December 2, 2019, Mr. Reddy filed an objection to the
recommended ruling in both cases. Obj. to Rec. Ruling, Main
House Action, ECF No. 15 (Dec. 2, 2019); Obj. to Rec. Ruling,
In-Law Unit Action, ECF No. 15 (Dec. 2, 2019).
Now
before the Court are Mr. Reddy's motions for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915[ ...