Diangelo v. Stawinski

Background

Joe Diangelo, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued Paul Stawinski, Peter Rojas, Melissa Pepper, Alejandro Ferrari, Black Cat Recovery, Inc., attorney John J. Cregan III, New York Marshal Edward F. Guida, SoFi Bank, N.A., Workout Loft Inc., and Canali System USA LLC. He asserted claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and state law.

Diangelo alleged that a New York state-court default judgment against him resulted from fraudulent service and litigation. He also alleged that, in 2025, Black Cat Recovery and Cregan used documents containing his unredacted Social Security number to pursue collection, that a restraining notice froze his SoFi account, and that Marshal Guida caused $166,014.54 to be transferred from the account. He asked the federal court to stop further enforcement of the state-court judgment and to recover the seized money.

Temporary restraining order standard

A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary form of emergency relief. The court explained that Diangelo had to show both a likelihood of irreparable harm—harm that money damages could not fully repair—and either a likelihood of success on his claims or serious questions supporting the case together with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him.

Likelihood of success

The court rejected Diangelo’s reliance on the Fair Credit Reporting Act provision he cited, 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g), because that provision concerns limiting the credit-card or debit-card numbers printed on receipts. The court found it unrelated to his allegations about disclosure of his Social Security number and noted that he did not invoke another part of the Act.

As to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims, Diangelo alleged that Black Cat Recovery and Cregan misstated the amount of the judgment, disclosed his Social Security number, used improper collection documents or procedures, took funds before the applicable exemption period ended, and failed to provide required written debt information. The court said that even if he could establish an FDCPA violation, that would not change his obligation under the existing state-court judgment. It also held that a federal district court could not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the state-court judgment, so Diangelo’s arguments that the judgment was fraudulent or should be vacated did not support the requested injunction or recovery of the seized funds.

For the civil RICO claim, Diangelo alleged that an enterprise used forged instruments, fraudulent litigation, extortion, identity theft, and invalid judgments to take his property. The court relied on public records showing that the state court had considered and rejected his arguments about service, affidavits, and the default judgment, and that the judgment had not been vacated. It therefore found that the allegedly fraudulent litigation could not serve as the predicate acts for his RICO claim in support of emergency relief.

Irreparable harm

The court found that Diangelo’s alleged injury was the seizure of money in enforcement of a judgment. It stated that monetary loss ordinarily does not establish irreparable harm unless it cannot be repaired through financial compensation. The court also noted that state-law remedies were available to protect exempt funds and that the state court had held a hearing concerning similar relief.

Disposition

The court concluded that Diangelo had shown neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor irreparable harm. Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Diangelo’s request for an ex parte temporary restraining order. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.