Sterling v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustss for Femit Trust…
Sterling v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustss for Femit Trust 2006-FF6, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-F6
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-00205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sterling v. Deutsche Bank, Judge Daniels granted defendants’ summary-judgment motions, dismissed the claims, and denied Sterling’s summary-judgment motion.
Everton Sterling and the defendants who moved for summary judgment, including Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Davidson Fink LLP, Larry Tate Powell, and Pillar Processing LLC.
What happened
In Sterling v. Deutsche Bank, pro se plaintiff Everton Sterling alleged that the defendants falsely misrepresented the value of property in which he had an interest.
Several defendants moved for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss Sterling’s claims. Sterling moved for summary judgment against all remaining defendants on liability.
Judge Daniels adopted the magistrate judge’s report, overruled Sterling’s objections, granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motions, and dismissed the claims against them. The court denied Sterling’s summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Sterling v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustss for Femit Trust… · No. 1:19-cv-00205
- George Daniels
- Mar. 29, 2023
Background
Pro se plaintiff Everton Sterling alleged that the defendants fraudulently misrepresented the value of certain property in which he had an interest. Defendants Davidson Fink LLP, Larry Tate Powell, Pillar Processing LLC, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Sterling moved for summary judgment against all remaining defendants on liability.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis recommended granting the defendants’ motions and denying Sterling’s motion. Sterling filed timely objections, so Judge Daniels reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Daniels agreed that Sterling had not properly alleged or supported a potential claim against the defendants. The court described his allegations as generic, unspecified, unsupported, and conclusory. Sterling asserted that Bronx County land records showed that the value of his mortgaged property had been falsely inflated, but the court found no copy of those records or explanation of what they were supposed to establish in Sterling’s summary-judgment filings.
The court concluded that Sterling had not provided specific facts showing a genuine dispute requiring a trial. It also found his remaining arguments without merit.
Disposition
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report in full and overruled Sterling’s objections. It granted the summary-judgment motions filed by Davidson Fink LLP, Larry Tate Powell, Pillar Processing LLC, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and dismissed the claims against them. It denied Sterling’s motion for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to close the open motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.