Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jin-Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortgage LLC

August 5, 2009

MEE JIN-JO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JPMC SPECIALTY MORTGAGE LLC,*FN1 DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard J. Arcara Chief Judge United States District Court

DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Pro se plaintiff Mee Jin-Jo has filed numerous motions that are currently pending, including a motion for recusal. Defendant has made a motion to dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that plaintiff's claims suffer from multiple legal defects that leave her without available remedies. Each of the pending motions will be addressed separately below.

BACKGROUND

This case concerns a foreclosure of a property located at 187 West 5th Street in Corning, New York (the "Property"). According to the complaint, plaintiff was a tenant of the Property at the time of foreclosure. Defendant is a corporation that acquired the mortgagee's rights in the Property on or around April 14, 2006 for $10.00. Defendant commenced foreclosure proceedings on April 19, 2006 in New York State Supreme Court, Steuben County. The mortgagor and principal named defendant in the foreclosure proceeding was someone named "Mihee Cho." Plaintiff's name does not appear in the caption of the foreclosure case, and defendant has admitted that "[n]o party with the name Mee Jin-Jo (the Plaintiff in the instant case), was named or served with process in the foreclosure action." (Dkt. No. 29 at 5.) Defendant has not submitted any information indicating that "Mihee Cho" and "Mee Jin-Jo" are the same person.

According to defendant, the mortgagor of the Property never appeared in the foreclosure action. Defendant consequently obtained a judgment of foreclosure and sale for the Property that was entered in the Steuben County Clerk's Office on or around September 28, 2006. The foreclosure sale occurred on November 14, 2006, with defendant purchasing the Property. Defendant then began eviction proceedings on December 18, 2006 with service of a Ten-Day Notice to Quit on the mortgagor pursuant to N.Y. Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law ("RPAPL") § 735. Plaintiff was not served with the Notice to Quit. Plaintiff was evicted from the Property on March 23, 2007 by the Steuben County Sheriff.

Plaintiff commenced this diversity action on March 18, 2008. The complaint contains eight claims:

(1) A violation of New York's "Truth-in-Storage" Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 605--610;

(2) Intentional torts;

(3) Conversion;

(4) A violation of Fifth Amendment due process rights by way of a violation of the notice requirements in N.Y. RPAPL § 1511 for foreclosures;

(5) A violation of N.Y. RPAPL § 713 and its notice requirements for eviction;

(6) A violation of N.Y. CPLR 735 and its notice requirements for special proceedings such as eviction proceedings;*fn2

(7) A violation of CPLR 3215 and its notice requirements for default judgments;*fn3 and

(8) A violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 607 against a since-terminated defendant.*fn4 In lieu of answering, defendant made a motion to dismiss on June 1, 2009.

Since January 2009, plaintiff has made 13 motions containing a variety of requests. Three of the motions have been adjudicated:

! On January 14, 2009 (Dkt. No. 8), plaintiff made a motion to revoke an order to show cause that allegedly "was made based on the unlawful and ungranted Ex parte motion and/or communication between the chamber of Hon. Charles J. Siragusa and the attorney for the defendant." This motion was denied indirectly in light of an automatic bankruptcy stay that affected this case when a prior defendant filed for bankruptcy; it was denied on more specific grounds in an Order entered on February 9, 2009.

! On January 30, 2009 (Dkt. No. 11), plaintiff made a motion to replace the name of the former bankrupt defendant with that of the current defendant, a request that this Court granted. The motion also sought to name two of defendant's attorneys as defendants themselves for violations of New York attorney disciplinary rules, and to name another corporate entity as a defendant despite alleging no tortious conduct by ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.