Amelio v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-08761
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Amelio v. Quicken Loans: Judge Carter denied the plaintiffs’ request to reconsider dismissal of their case for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Alfonso Amelio and Carmine Amelio’s federal case remained dismissed after the court denied their motion for reconsideration; the defendants were not required to litigate the dismissed claims in this federal action.
What happened
In Amelio v. Quicken Loans, Alfonso Amelio and Carmine Amelio, representing themselves, challenged a mortgage and related foreclosure proceedings. The court had previously dismissed their amended complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider that dismissal. They repeated arguments that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, claim preclusion, and issue preclusion did not apply. They did not identify new facts or law that justified changing the earlier decision.
Judge Carter denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to close the motion. The opinion does not reopen the case or change the earlier dismissal.
The detailed version
- Amelio v. Quicken Loans, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08761
- Andrew Carter
- May 9, 2024
Background
Alfonso Amelio and Carmine Amelio, proceeding without lawyers, sued multiple defendants concerning a mortgage and foreclosure of property identified in the opinion as 68 Crotty Road, Middletown, New York. The opinion states that the plaintiffs executed a note and mortgage in 2006, defaulted in 2009, and that OneWest Bank began a foreclosure action in state court that year. The state court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale in December 2017.
In their third amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that they believed they were entering a traditional original-purchase mortgage loan, that Quicken Loans was not a depository financial institution capable of originating mortgage loans, and that they did not consent to or electronically sign the note. They claimed that the mortgage loan was fraudulent.
Prior Ruling and Motion for Reconsideration
On September 29, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed the complaint because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a jurisdictional rule that generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing a state-court judgment. The opinion also refers to the plaintiffs’ arguments about claim preclusion and issue preclusion, legal doctrines that can prevent parties from relitigating matters decided in earlier proceedings.
The plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The court explained that reconsideration requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Under the court’s local rule, the moving party must also show that the court overlooked controlling law or facts previously presented that could reasonably have changed the result.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not identified facts or law warranting reconsideration. In the court’s view, the plaintiffs were repeating arguments that their claims should not have been dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and were attempting to relitigate their arguments concerning claim preclusion and issue preclusion. The court stated that it had already considered those arguments under the appropriate standard and based on the same facts.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion identified as ECF No. 227. The ruling addressed only whether the earlier dismissal should be reconsidered; it did not alter that dismissal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.