Farmer v. Law Office Weiner & Weiner, LLC

Background

Richard Farmer, representing himself, sued the Law Office Weiner & Weiner, LLC; Paul I. Weiner, Esquire, LLC; Paul Ivan Weiner; Joshua Lawrence Weiner; Budd Larner, doing business as Budd Larner, P.C.; Law Offices of Coughlin Duffy, LLP; Kevin T. Coughlin; Timothy I. Duffy; and other named defendants. He alleged willful concealment, deceit, and fraud based on federal criminal statutes and New York law. The opinion states that the central allegation concerned Attorney Weiner’s maintaining a New Jersey office while practicing law in New York.

Farmer also alleged that the defendants’ conduct affected an earlier lawsuit involving his former employer. In that earlier round of the case, a default judgment had been entered, and the court later vacated those default judgments. The court explained that this lawsuit was not the proper forum for challenging that earlier ruling.

Motions and Report

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses the court’s subject-matter authority to hear a claim, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended granting the motions and denying leave to amend. Farmer filed objections after the deadline. Judge Daniels considered them despite their lateness, but held that many did not directly address the report’s reasoning and that new claims could not be raised through objections.

Court’s Analysis

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Wang’s report. It agreed that Farmer had not identified a private right to sue under the federal criminal statutes on which he relied. The court also agreed that the remaining New York claims should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and because they were not actionable, lacked an alleged injury, failed to state a claim, or lacked a private right of action. The opinion further states that Farmer had not alleged a constitutional-right violation that could support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court agreed that amendment would be futile and denied Farmer leave to amend. It also stated that using this case as a collateral challenge to the earlier default-judgment ruling was improper.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels overruled Farmer’s objections and adopted the report. The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Farmer’s claims against the defendants with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the motions. The opinion also states that the outstanding claims against Henry A. Larner, Mark D. Larner, Mitchell Rait, Peter John Frazza, and Susan Reach Winters were dismissed.