Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Declining Corus Construction Venture, LLC v. Canton On the Park

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


January 14, 2011

DECLINING CORUS CONSTRUCTION VENTURE, LLC.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CANTON ON THE PARK, LLC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauskopf, United States District Judge.

SUPPLEMENTAL

JURISDICTION AND TO SUPREME COURT, REMANDING THE MATTER KINGS COUNTY

ORDER

For the reasons discussed on the record at the conference held on January 6, 2011, as well as those set forth in the Letter Brief submitted by Defendant Springline Builders LLC [36], in the exercise of its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that remain in this action. See Valencia v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2003).

Simply put, this commercial foreclosure action was litigated in state court for two years before its removal to this Court by the FDIC as Receiver for Plaintiff Corus Bank, N.A. The FDIC has settled all claims, and is no longer a party to this action. During the entire pendency of this action in this Court, this Court has not heard or addressed any substantive issues, and has not had any involvement which has given it intimate knowledge of the facts or the law related to these claims. All that remains in this action are purely state claims that will require, principally, a court-ordered sale of the property and the determination under New York law of the priority of various liens in a motion for summary judgment. These are matters that are typically, properly and best adjudicated by the state court and its specialized foreclosure part, the very court that handled this matter for over two years. And notwithstanding Plaintiff's protestations to the contrary, the state court can ably and expeditiously address the remaining issues. There is nothing other than Plaintiff's speculation to suggest that the case would move any quicker here, or slower there.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, and others as discussed on the record and in Defendant's submission, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. The Clerk of Court is directed to immediately remand this matter back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, and to close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF United States District Judge

20110114

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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