Marrero v. U.S. Bank National Association
Marrero v. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE3
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-11182
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Marrero v. U.S. Bank, Judge Briccetti denied Marrero’s motion to remand, finding federal jurisdiction, proper removal, and no default.
Robert W. Marrero and the defendants remain in federal court; the defendants’ separate motion to dismiss was not decided in this opinion.
What happened
In Marrero v. U.S. Bank National Association, Robert W. Marrero, representing himself, asked the federal court to send his case back to state court. He argued that the court lacked authority over the case, that the removal process was defective, and that the defendants were in default.
The court rejected all three arguments. It found that Marrero’s first claim arose under federal law whether it was treated as a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim or a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim. It also found that Specialized Loan Servicing followed the required removal steps and that the defendants responded within the applicable deadlines.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the motion to remand. The defendants’ separate motion to dismiss was still pending and was not decided in this opinion.
The detailed version
- Marrero v. U.S. Bank National Association · No. 7:21-cv-11182
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
Robert W. Marrero, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc. 2006-HE3, Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-HE3; U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee; Citibank, N.A.; Specialized Loan Servicing LLC; and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The complaint asserted eleven causes of action related to a foreclosure action, including a claim labeled as a violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state-law claims.
Marrero originally filed the case in Supreme Court, Rockland County, on November 8, 2021. Specialized Loan Servicing removed it to federal court on December 30, 2021. Marrero then asked the federal court to remand, or return, the case to state court. He argued that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, that the removal procedure was defective, and that the defendants had failed to respond on time.
Federal Jurisdiction
The court held that it had federal-question jurisdiction. Although the first cause of action was labeled an FDCPA claim, the allegations cited 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e and 1681i, which are provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, not the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The allegations also concerned the defendants’ alleged failure to correct credit reports. The court explained that either type of federal claim would arise under federal law and therefore support federal-question jurisdiction. The court also had supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It did not decide whether diversity jurisdiction provided an additional basis for federal jurisdiction.
Removal Procedure
The court rejected Marrero’s argument that the defendants needed to file a motion or seek relief in state court before removing the case. It explained that removal required Specialized Loan Servicing to file a notice of removal in federal court, file a copy in state court, and promptly notify the other parties. The court found that Specialized Loan Servicing completed each step: it filed the notice in federal court on December 30, 2021, sent a copy to the state court, and served Marrero.
Alleged Default
The court also rejected Marrero’s argument that the defendants were in default. Based on the service information provided, Specialized Loan Servicing’s state-court response deadline was December 31, 2021, and U.S. Bank’s was January 3, 2022. Specialized Loan Servicing removed the case before both deadlines. After removal, the response deadline became January 6, 2022. The defendants then timely requested an extension through February 7, 2022, which the court granted, and they moved to dismiss on February 7.
Ruling
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Marrero’s motion to remand. The opinion did not decide the defendants’ separate motion to dismiss; it stated that motion would be decided later. Marrero was given until March 11, 2022, to oppose that motion or seek an extension, and the defendants were given until March 25, 2022, to file a reply.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.