Gerasimov v. Amalgamated Housing Corporation

Background

Boris Gerasimov, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Amalgamated Housing Corporation, the law firm that represented the cooperative in eviction proceedings against him, and the law firm that defended the cooperative in his later state-court malicious-prosecution action. The complaint asserted claims based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, the “Law of Evidence,” claim preclusion, unclean hands, alleged perjury, alleged mail fraud, and “Elder law.”

Motions and recommendation

The defendants moved to dismiss under several provisions and doctrines, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, Rule 9(b), the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, failure to include a necessary party, statutes of limitations, claim preclusion, and, for one law firm, insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5). Gerasimov cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings and for a change of venue.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss, denying Gerasimov’s motions as moot, and dismissing the action. No party filed an objection within the required time. The district court therefore noted that the parties had waived their right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review. Even so, the court conducted its own review and found the recommendation well reasoned.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It denied Gerasimov’s motions for judgment on the pleadings and for a change of venue as moot. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.