Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-CV-00620
05-05-2022
LUZERNE COUNTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DANIELE A. BOLDRINI, Defendant.
MANNION, D.J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is a motion to remand to the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas filed by Plaintiff 1900 Capital Trust II, by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as Certificate Trustee (“1900 Capital Trust”) on May 3, 2022. (Doc. 4). This matter stems from two separate actions brought by Plaintiffs Luzerne County and 1990 Capital Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) that relate to a mortgage foreclosure judgment entered in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas against Antonello Boldrini, the father of Defendant Daniele A. Boldrini (“Defendant”), and the sale of the property subject to the mortgage to 1900 Capital Trust. (Doc. 4, at 3). 1900 Capital Trust requests that the current matter be remanded back to state court because the United State District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania lacks jurisdiction over the two matters removed. (Doc. 5, at 2). In addition, 1900 Capital Trust asserts that removal to this Court is improper because Alexander Boldrini is barred from removing any matter arising from the foreclosure of his real property without express leave of Court. (Doc. 4, at 3). For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Court grant 1900 Capital Trust's motion to remand. (Doc. 4).
I. Discussion
On April 28, 2022, Defendant Daniele Boldrini filed a Notice of Removal, removing two separate state mortgage foreclosure actions to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 28 U.S.C. § 1443 “because Luzerne County Court violated the U.S. Constitution knowingly.” (Doc. 1, at 3). This is the Boldrinis' fifth attempt to remove matters arising from the state mortgage foreclosure of his real property to federal court. The Boldrinis' four previous attempts have all been remanded back to Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas.
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Boldrini, No. 3:17-CV-2357 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2017), ECF No. 1; Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Boldrini, No. 3:18-CV-01959 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2018), ECF No. 1; Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Boldrini, No. 3:19-CV-01576 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2019), ECF No. 1; Luzerne Cty. v. Boldrini, No. 3:21-CV-02005 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2021), ECF No. 1; (Doc. 1).
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Boldrini, No. 3:17-CV-2357 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2018), ECF No. 87; Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Boldrini, No. 3:18-CV-01959 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 2019), ECF No. 45; Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Boldrini, No. 3:19-CV-01576 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 19. 2019), ECF No. 121; Luzerne Cty. v. Boldrini, No. 3:21-CV-02005 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 13, 2022), ECF No. 79.
On December 9, 2019, Judge Mariani in this Court issued an Order enjoining Alexander Boldrini “from filing, without leave of Court, any new case in this Court arising in connection with or relating to the facts and claims” of his state mortgage foreclosure proceedings (the “Sanctions Order”). Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Boldrini, No. 3:19-CV-01576 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2019), ECF No. 122. The Sanctions Oder provided that in order to remove a state court action related to the state mortgage foreclosure of Antonello Boldrini's real property, Antonello Boldrini must first submit, by mail, a notice of filing to Judge Mariani for pre-docketing review and authorization. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Boldrini, No. 3:19-CV-01576 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2019), ECF No. 122, at 3-4.
In this case, Defendant asserts that he has removed this action with the “consent” of his father, Antonello Boldrini, who is “waiting for leave the court permission in light of the USDC for MD of PA Honorable Judge Malachy Mannion (Doc. 79) entered on April 13, 2022 ....” (Doc. 1, at 1). As discussed supra, the Court has dismissed multiple attempts by Antonello Boldrini and Daniele Boldrini to remove state court actions arising from the same state mortgage foreclosure of Antonello Boldrini's real property despite being “well-aware of Judge Mariani's December 9, 2019 Order when they removed the instant case to federal court.” Luzerne Cty. v. Boldrini, No. 3:21-CV-02005 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 13, 2022), ECF No. 79, at 4. Despite Defendant's assertion, the Court notes that Daniele Boldrini has not demonstrated that either he or Antonello Boldrini have sought leave of Court in accordance with the Sanctions Order. Thus, the Court construes Defendant's assertion as an attempt to circumvent the Sanctions Order. Moreover, the Court finds that remand to the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas is proper because Defendant's removal constitutes a filing of a new case by Antonello Boldrini without prior authorization in violation of the Sanctions Order. See Danihel v. Office of President, 640 Fed.Appx. 185, 189 (3d Cir. 2016) (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's case that violated the court's filing injunction issued against plaintiff even though “the causes of action listed in [plaintiff's] [second complaint] are labeled differently than those in the first complaint, [since] the two complaints effectively make the same substantive arguments.”) (citing Jarbough v. Att'y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 189 (3d Cir. 2007) (“We are not bound by the label attached by a party to characterize a claim and will look beyond the label to analyze the substance of a claim.”)).
Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the Court grant 1900 Capital Trust's motion to remand. (Doc. 4).
II. Recommendation
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that 1900 Capital Trust's motion to remand (Doc. 4) be GRANTED, the case be remanded to the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, and that the Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated May 5, 2022. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.