Almazon v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association

Background

Doina Rosu Almazon filed this federal action against JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, alleging federal and state-law violations related to JPMorgan Chase’s efforts to litigate a foreclosure action concerning her home in New York state court. She initially filed the federal complaint without a lawyer. She later removed the state foreclosure action to federal court, but the removal was defective for several reasons, including that it was untimely and was filed in the wrong federal district. Almazon, then represented by counsel, consented to remand, and this Court remanded the foreclosure action.

After the remand, the parties continued litigating in state court. The state court denied Almazon’s request to reargue the foreclosure judgment. With a foreclosure sale apparently scheduled for December 17, 2019, Almazon, again without a lawyer, submitted a letter seeking an emergency order stopping the sale and declaring the state court’s denial of reargument void because it allegedly occurred while the case was removed.

Temporary Restraining Order Standard

The Court treated Almazon’s letter as a motion for a temporary restraining order, a short-term order intended to prevent immediate harm. The Court explained that such relief requires irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest.

Court’s Analysis

The Court concluded that Almazon had not shown a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions on the merits. First, because the foreclosure action had been remanded, the federal court no longer had jurisdiction over that proceeding. The separate affirmative claims pending against JPMorgan Chase were distinct from and only tangentially related to the foreclosure action, so they could not provide a basis for stopping the state foreclosure case.

Second, the Court rejected any request to reconsider the remand. Almazon’s counsel had previously acknowledged that the removal was improper, and the Court found no legal basis to revisit its remand decision. The Court also rejected the authorities Almazon cited as showing that a federal court could continue supervising the state foreclosure case after remand.

Third, the Court explained that even if Almazon removed the foreclosure case again, the federal court could not vacate the state court’s foreclosure judgment. The Court cited principles that prevent federal district courts from functioning as appellate courts over state-court judgments, and it also stated that Almazon’s attempt to present the same argument for a stay was barred by claim preclusion, which generally prevents relitigation of claims or issues that were or could have been raised in an earlier case.

Disposition

The Court denied Almazon’s letter, construed as a motion for a temporary restraining order. The Court also stated that permission for an interlocutory appeal was unnecessary because, given the timing of the foreclosure sale, the decision could be effectively challenged only through an immediate appeal.