Mongiello v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-02290
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mongiello v. Indymac Bank, Judge Karas gave the pro se plaintiff one last chance to provide a service address for IndyMac’s successor.
Christopher M. Mongiello, who must provide a service address for IndyMac’s successor within 30 days or risk dismissal; IndyMac and its identified successor, OneWest Bank, are the intended recipients of service.
What happened
In Mongiello v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B., Christopher M. Mongiello sued IndyMac under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and a New York law concerning real property. He was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance.
The court had previously ordered Mongiello to provide IndyMac’s proper service address. Mongiello instead maintained that an address in Houston, Texas, was correct. The court found that the process-server materials did not clearly establish proper service, and that the U.S. Marshals’ service paperwork did not show service on IndyMac.
Judge Karas ordered Mongiello to determine the proper address for serving IndyMac’s successor, OneWest Bank, and provide it to the court within 30 days. The court did not dismiss the case in this order, but warned that failing to meet the deadline may result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- Mongiello v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B. · No. 7:24-cv-02290
- Kenneth Karas
- Dec. 11, 2024
Background
Christopher M. Mongiello, representing himself, brought claims against IndyMac Bank under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, a federal statute concerning real-estate loan servicing and settlement practices, and New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1501. The claims concerned real property in New Rochelle, New York. The court had allowed Mongiello to proceed without prepaying court fees.
IndyMac had gone out of business in 2009, according to the complaint. The opinion states that the court was aware of lawsuits involving IndyMac’s successor, OneWest Bank, and/or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The opinion does not decide whether Mongiello’s claims have merit.
Service Problem
On September 20, 2024, the court ordered Mongiello to inform it of IndyMac’s proper service address within 30 days. Service is the formal delivery of the lawsuit and related papers to a defendant in the manner required by law. The court stated that there was no concrete indication that IndyMac or its agents had been properly served.
Mongiello responded that an address in Houston, Texas, was IndyMac’s proper service address. He submitted an affidavit from his process server, who relied on a document that the court found too blurry to read clearly. The process server also claimed to have served Latya Williams on behalf of IndyMac and Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, LLC, a co-defendant whom Mongiello had already voluntarily dismissed. Mongiello additionally asserted that the U.S. Marshals had independently confirmed the Houston address, but the court noted that the Marshals’ service statement had been completed and returned only by Shellpoint’s counsel.
Order
The court gave Mongiello one final opportunity to complete service. It ordered him to determine the proper service address for IndyMac’s successor, OneWest Bank, and provide that address to the court within 30 days so the court could direct the U.S. Marshals to serve the defendant. The court warned that failure to meet the deadline may result in dismissal of the action. This order did not dismiss the action or decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.