Amelio v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-08761
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Amelio v. Quicken Loans, Judge Carter dismissed the foreclosure-related case for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Alfonso Amelio and Carmine Amelio’s federal claims were dismissed, the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted, and the case was closed. The opinion also denied the plaintiffs’ requests to amend and to obtain additional time to retain counsel.
What happened
In Amelio v. Quicken Loans, Alfonso and Carmine Amelio sued nine defendants over the origination and foreclosure of a mortgage, bringing 19 claims. They filed the federal case after a state court entered a foreclosure judgment and later denied their requests to undo it.
The defendants asked the federal court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The court held that the lawsuit was effectively asking it to review and overturn the state-court foreclosure judgment, which federal district courts cannot do under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Judge Carter dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, denied the plaintiffs’ requests to amend their complaint and obtain 30 more days to retain counsel, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Amelio v. Quicken Loans, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08761
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 29, 2023
Background
Alfonso Amelio and Carmine Amelio sued McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C.; Fein, Such & Crane LLP; Seterus, Inc.; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; Onewest Bank, N.A.; Quicken Loans, Inc.; Federal National Mortgage Association; Concrete Properties, LLC; and Sandelands Eyet LLP. The plaintiffs’ third amended complaint asserted 19 claims concerning the origination and completed foreclosure of a mortgage on 68 Crotty Road, Middletown, New York. The claims included alleged violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and the First and Thirteenth Amendments, along with several state-law claims.
On August 9, 2006, Alfonso Amelio executed a note for $84,000 to Quicken, and Alfonso and Carmine Amelio executed a mortgage securing the note. The mortgage was later assigned to Ocwen and then to the Federal National Mortgage Association. Onewest began a state-court foreclosure action on December 18,
- The state court later found the note valid and enforceable, entered a final judgment of foreclosure against both plaintiffs on January 8, 2018, and denied a motion to vacate that judgment on May 29,
- The state court found that Carmine Amelio was not a proper intervenor because he was not a borrower, mortgagor, or property owner. The property was sold at a foreclosure auction to Concrete Properties on September 18,
- The state court denied a second motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment on March 3, 2020.
The plaintiffs filed this federal action pro se on September 20, 2019. They received three opportunities to amend their complaint, with the third amended complaint filed on May 16, 2022. Multiple defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The court did not reach the defendants’ other arguments for dismissal.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional rule that generally prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeals court over a state-court judgment. The court explained that the doctrine applies when the federal plaintiff lost in state court, complains of injuries caused by the state judgment, asks the federal court to review and reject that judgment, and the state judgment came before the federal case.
The court found all four conditions satisfied. Alfonso Amelio had been a named defendant in the foreclosure action, and both plaintiffs had joined motions seeking to vacate the foreclosure judgment. The court found that the plaintiffs raised in federal court the same kinds of arguments— including fraud allegations and challenges to the authority to foreclose—that had been decided in state court. It also found that their requested relief, including declaring the mortgage and electronic note void and declaring them the lawful owners of the property, would require the federal court to reject the state court’s foreclosure determination.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims were either direct or indirect challenges to the state-court foreclosure judgment. Because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the claims were dismissed. The defendants’ motions at ECF Nos. 134, 140, 143, 146, 149, and 154 were granted. The plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their complaint and their request for a 30-day extension to retain counsel were denied. Judge Carter directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions and close the case.
Classification Basis
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without deciding whether the plaintiffs’ underlying claims were legally valid.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.