Opinion
3:21CV01578 (SALM)
11-30-2021
US BANK TRUST, N.A. v. JOHN KRONDES, KAREN A. KRONDES, et al.
ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE COURT
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Self-represented party John Krondes has filed a Notice of Removal, attempting to remove this matter to the District of Connecticut. See Doc. #1. For the reasons set forth below, this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, in St. Lucie County, Florida.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 29, 2021, John Krondes filed a document in this Court entitled “Notice of Removal.” Doc. #1. The document purports to remove the captioned matter from a state court in Florida. Krondes provided a case number, 2017CA001117, and a copy of the docket sheet for the Florida case with the Notice, see Doc. #1, but did not provide a “copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action[, ]” as required by 28 U.S.C §1446(a). For the purposes of this Order, the Court takes judicial notice of the docket in the Florida case, which the Court has accessed at https://stlucieclerk.com/public-search-gen/search-court-cases. See Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[C]ourts routinely take judicial notice of documents filed in other courts, ... not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.”). The Court is unable, however, to view the actual docketed items in that matter, and its review is limited to the docket entries themselves. A copy of the docket as accessed by the Court is attached as Exhibit A.
Krondes contends that he has not supplied the required materials with his Notice because “the true Complaint or Summons have not been served upon him ... and are thus not able to be provided at this time with the filing of this removal.” Doc. #1 at 14. However, the Florida docket reflects that Krondes filed a Notice of Appearance in that matter on February 26, 2018, see Exhibit A, Entry 48, and that he has filed a number of documents in the Florida case. See id., Entries 51, 75, 84, 150, 179, 196.
A review of the Florida docket does not reveal that any Notice of Removal has been filed in the Florida Case regarding removal to this Court on November 29, 2021. See Exhibit A. The docket does reflect that a Final Judgment of Foreclosure entered on August 3, 2021, and a Foreclosure Sale has been set for December 1, 2021. See id., Entries 337, 339.
Krondes has previously attempted to remove this matter to federal court at least three times. On September 25, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an Order remanding the case to state court. See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. John Krondes and Karen A. Krondes, et al., 2:20CV14239(DMM) (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2020), Doc. #20. Judge Middlebrooks recited, in that remand order, the history of improper removal attempts, and the lack of federal jurisdiction. A copy of that order was provided to Krondes when it was issued, and the undersigned presumes that he is aware of its findings.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Under federal law, a state court defendant may remove to federal court “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). A case may only be removed “to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” Id.
Even if removal to the Southern District of Florida were proper, removal to the District of Connecticut is not.
“[T]he burden of establishing that removal is proper[]” falls on the party seeking removal. United Food & Comm. Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994). “[F]ederal courts construe the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubts against removability.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
In all matters, whether removed or not, federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “If the court determines at any time it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (emphasis added).
III. DISCUSSION - SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
The claims in the underlying case “sound[] squarely and solely in foreclosure, a quintessential state cause of action.” Bank of New York v. Consiglio, No. 3:17CV01408(CSH), 2017 WL 4948069, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 1, 2017). Federal courts generally abstain from exercising jurisdiction over foreclosure matters. See Muong v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No. 1:13CV06564(KAM), 2013 WL 6667374, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2013) (“[I]t is well settled that judgments of foreclosure ... are fundamentally matters of state law.” (collecting authorities)). “The Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a state court judgment of foreclosure, however creatively cloaked.” Woermer v. Hirsh, No. 3:18CV01898(KAD), 2018 WL 7572237, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 11, 2018).
In addition, Krondes clearly seeks, by this filing, to attack the state court's judgment of foreclosure. Krondes complains that the Florida court “unfairly and injuriously forced” him “to appear at a Court Trial on August 3, 2021[.]” Doc. #1 at 3. Indeed, he alleges that he was “coerced under pressure into a consent judgment” and demands that the state court “judgment must be vacated by the powers of this court[.]” Id. at 5.
Plaintiff expressly asks this Court to vacate the judgment of the Florida court. This, the Court cannot do. “[N]o court of the United States other than [the Supreme Court] could entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify” a state court judgment. Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). “To do so would be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts is strictly original.” Id. This Court is therefore precluded from reviewing and rejecting the judgment of the Florida court. See Gonzalez v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 632 Fed.Appx. 32, 33-34 (2d Cir. 2016).
For all of these reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
IV. DISCUSSION - TIMELINESS
Even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter, the removal is untimely. “The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant ... of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based[.]” 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1). “A case may not be removed under [§1446](b)(3) on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 more than 1 year after commencement of the action[.]” 28 U.S.C. §1446(c)(1). The Florida case was filed on June 29, 2017. See Exhibit A, Entry 5. No legitimate basis for the attempted removal four years later has been offered. Krondes has been previously warned that his efforts at removal were untimely. See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A. v. John Krondes and Karen A. Krondes, et al., 2:18CV14390(DMM) (S.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2019), Doc. #25 at 2-5.
It is apparent that this latest attempted removal is nothing more than delay tactic. Over a year ago, the Southern District of Florida imposed sanctions on Krondes for the third attempted removal, finding that Krondes “lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” U.S. Bank, N.A. v. John Krondes and Karen A. Krondes, et al., 2:20CV14239(DMM) (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2020), Doc. #20 at 7. The Court held:
Prior to filing the instant Notice of Removal, this Court had not once, but twice, remanded the state court foreclosure matter on the basis of the untimeliness of the Notices of Removal and this Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in the state court complaint. (DE 25 at 2-7 in the 2018 Middlebrooks case, DE 7 in the Rosenberg case). Notwithstanding these rulings, Defendants persisted in filing yet a third Notice of Removal containing the same jurisdictional
deficiencies as the first two. I find it objectively unreasonable that Defendants successively sought removal of this action in contravention of the two prior remand orders when no changed circumstances could have given them any cause to believe that the result would be different this time.Id.
Krondes is cautioned that he may not attempt to evade the judgments of the Florida state court, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, by bringing spurious claims in the District of Connecticut.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, in St. Lucie County, Florida.
Krondes has now been repeatedly advised, at least four times, that this action is not properly removable to District Court. If Krondes attempts to remove this action to federal court again, without a valid basis, and in violation of the requirements of the removal statute, sanctions may be imposed. Such sanctions may include monetary penalties, or imposition of an anti-filing injunction barring Krondes from bringing further actions in this Court. Krondes is advised to review Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure carefully. That Rule permits a court to impose sanctions on a party who, among other things, makes a filing for any improper purpose, such as delay, or makes claims or arguments that the party knows are not supported by law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b), (c).
The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this matter to the Florida court immediately, the provisions of Local Rule 83.7 notwithstanding. The Court will not permit this delay tactic to impede the scheduled foreclosure sale date of December 1, 2021.
The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Krondes at his address of record.
It is so ordered at New Haven, Connecticut, this 30th day of November, 2021.
EXHIBIT OMITTED