Williams v. Long Beach Mortgage Company
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06838
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. Long Beach Mortgage Company, Judge Swain dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and denied emergency relief as moot.
Valerie Williams and the named defendants—Long Beach Mortgage Company, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2006-2, Stephen J. Baum, John Doe, and Jane Roe—were affected by the dismissal; Williams’s emergency-relief request was denied as moot.
What happened
In Williams v. Long Beach Mortgage Company, Valerie Williams sued to vacate a state foreclosure judgment, alleging that the defendants obtained it through fraud. She represented herself and asked for emergency injunctive relief.
The court had previously dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but allowed Williams to file a new pleading explaining the basis for federal jurisdiction. Her later affidavit repeated her allegations but did not identify that basis.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, declined to consider any state-law claims, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and denied Williams’s request for emergency relief as moot. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Long Beach Mortgage Company · No. 1:22-cv-06838
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 30, 2023
Background
Valerie Williams filed this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3), seeking to vacate a state-court foreclosure judgment. She alleged that Long Beach Mortgage Company, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2006-2, Stephen J. Baum, John Doe, and Jane Roe obtained the foreclosure judgment through fraud. Williams appeared without a lawyer and was proceeding without paying the filing fee based on financial eligibility.
The court had previously dismissed the matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and allowed Williams to replead. It instructed her to explain the basis for federal jurisdiction and warned that judgment would be entered if she did not comply. Williams later filed an affidavit supporting her complaint and then sought an emergency order requiring the defendants to show why emergency injunctive relief should not issue. The court found that the affidavit repeated her earlier allegations but did not establish a basis for federal jurisdiction.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because the case was dismissed, the court denied Williams’s request for an order to show cause and emergency injunctive relief as moot, terminated all other pending matters, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The opinion does not decide whether the alleged foreclosure fraud occurred or whether Williams was entitled to vacate the state-court judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.