Umeze v. Johnson
Ben Umeze, MD v. Alfreda Johnson, Ralph Vartolo, Esq., U.S. Bank National Association, Fay Servicing, LLC, Citibank, N.A., CitiGroup, Inc., Franklin K. Chiu, Esq., and John/Jane Does 1-10
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-05610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ben Umeze v. Johnson, Judge Ho denied Umeze’s request to halt foreclosure and eviction proceedings involving his property.
Ben Umeze and the defendants in the foreclosure-related lawsuit; the ruling left the challenged state-court foreclosure and eviction proceedings without the requested federal stay.
What happened
In Ben Umeze, MD v. Alfreda Johnson, et al., Ben Umeze sued several defendants over alleged misconduct connected to a foreclosure judgment involving his property. Representing himself, he sought an order stopping foreclosure, eviction, and any transfer of the property.
Umeze asked the federal court for an emergency order and a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary order issued before a final decision. He argued that the defendants’ conduct supported claims under federal debt-collection and civil-rights laws.
Judge Dale E. Ho denied both Umeze’s request for an order to show cause and his request for preliminary injunctive relief. Judge Ho found that Umeze had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success or serious questions supporting an injunction, and said the requested federal interference was likely barred by doctrines protecting ongoing state proceedings and preventing relitigation of claims already decided.
The detailed version
- Umeze v. Johnson · No. 1:25-cv-05610
- Ho
- Sept. 15, 2025
Background
Ben Umeze, MD, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Alfreda Johnson; Ralph Vartolo, Esq.; U.S. Bank National Association; Fay Servicing, LLC; Citibank, N.A.; CitiGroup, Inc.; Franklin K. Chiu, Esq.; and John/Jane Does 1-10. He sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief based on alleged misconduct that he said resulted in a foreclosure judgment concerning his property at 1421-23 Glover Street in the Bronx.
Umeze filed an application for an order to show cause and a temporary restraining order. He asked the Court to stay foreclosure proceedings in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, and other state or administrative proceedings, and to prevent the defendants from enforcing a foreclosure sale, eviction, or transfer of title. The defendants opposed the application, and Umeze replied.
Legal Standard
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary temporary remedy. The Court explained that a plaintiff must show irreparable harm—harm that cannot adequately be repaired later—and either a likelihood of success on the merits or serious legal questions combined with a balance of hardships that strongly favors the plaintiff.
Court’s Analysis
The Court concluded that Umeze’s submissions did not show a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions concerning his claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion identified those claims as the basis for federal-question jurisdiction.
The Court also stated that the relief Umeze sought—federal intervention in a state-court eviction proceeding—was likely barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. That doctrine generally cautions federal courts against enjoining or otherwise interfering with ongoing state proceedings. The Court further stated that Umeze appeared to have brought substantially the same claims against the same parties or their legal successors in the state foreclosure proceeding, where the state court had denied him relief. The Court said those claims were therefore likely barred by res judicata, also called claim preclusion, which prevents parties from relitigating claims that were or could have been raised in an earlier action after a final judgment.
Disposition
The Court denied Umeze’s request for an order to show cause and denied his request for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 5. The opinion ruled on the request for temporary and preliminary relief; it did not enter a final merits ruling on Umeze’s underlying claims.
The order was signed by United States District Judge Dale E. Ho.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.