DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED:_1 2/04/2024 EUGENE ELWIN THOMAS, Plaintiff, -against- 24-CV-07504 (MMG) MCCABE, WEISBERG & CONWAY, LLC et al., NOTICE Defendants.
MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: The Court issues this Notice to publicly file letters that the Court recerved in Chambers from the Plaintiff, which are appended to this Notice. Dated: December 4, 2024 New York, New York SO ORDERED.
2 7 iar MARGARET M. CARN TT United SEU udge
EUGENE ELWIN THOMAS, ACP 5197 PO BOX 1110 U.S.A. November 20, 2024
To: United States District Court for Southern District of New York Garnett, Margaret M. d/b/a U.S.D.] 500 Peart Street [New York, New York] [10007] “ULS.A.
In Re: Eugene Elwin Thomas et al v. McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC et al 1:24-cv-07504-MMG
Dear Judge Garnett,
I. This serves as a request for discussion to be had during the rescheduled telephone conference on or about November 26, 2024, II. Plaintiff asserts he has received defendant Deutsche Bank National! Trust Company by its counsel motion to dismiss dated on or about October 29, 2024, which seeks dismissal of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (‘’FRCP’’) 12 (b) (1) and 12 (b) (6) as well as on grounds of Res Judicata, Ill. Plaintiff currently has not received an answer for defendant McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC and more than twenty-one (21) days has lapsed at which plaintiff request that a discussion be had on whether submission of a Request for certificate of default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to plead or otherwise defend this action as fully appears from the court file and plaintiff believes a Motion for default is warranted. IV. Plaintiff believes that defendant McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC is liable for violations of specific civil rights of the plaintiff pursuant to 100 STAT. 768 PUBLIC LAW 99-361 To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to provide that any attorney who collects debts on behaif of a client shall be subject to the provisions of such Act. V. — In this instant action Plaintiff has submitted substantial evidence following a previous law suit that defendant McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC was given notice of mitigation involving the potential for deed theft as well of theft of an instrument supplied to defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company for satisfaction of the alleged debt with (1) Error Resolution Notice Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 via Registered Mail #: RE827274420US (delivered on or about August 1, 2023 marked as Exhibit ‘’B’’; (2) in re: Case #CS0290874 (Office of Comptroller of Currency marked EXHIBITS “’E”’, °F’’, and OG”, VI. Plaintiff also request that if the court accepts the filing of defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company motion to dismiss which was submitted prior to
telephone conference that a schedule be given to afford the plaintiff time to submit an adequate response.
GROUNDS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL JURSIDICTON VU. Plaintiff claims raise Federal questions that could not possibly be litigated by the lower state court i.e., New York State Supreme Court for the State of New York. VI. Plaintiff did submit Notice of Claim upon New York State office of Attorney: General as it relates to the potential for deed theft as he was solicited prior to the auction by mail that a deed theft may have been underway as it relates to his real property. IX. New York State failed fo intervene prior to auction and plaintiff has a separate issue pending in New York State Court of claims as it relates to failures to intervene. x. Plaintiff's current action mvolve damages as it relates to theft of the deed and has supplied evidence of a forensic audit to determine whether defendant’s where truthful in how it obtained the foreclosure and sale. XJ. Plaintiff duly contacted the original lender Carrington Mortgage Services LLC and they also could not validate the debt as it relates to defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. XH. The rights here sought to be redressed are rights guaranteed by contract and in accordance with, Jurisdiction over Supplemental Claims Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as hereinafter more fully appears.
XI. = =28 U.S.C, § 1367 (a) states (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. XIV. Courts have interpreted the “so related” language to be satisfied when both the jurisdiction-invoking claim and the supplemental claim derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. 13D Wright & Miller § 3567.1, p. 337. XV. Jurisdiction Upheld: Cicio v. Does, 321 F.3d 83, 97 (2d Cir. 2003), Houskins v. Sheahan, 549 F.3d 480, 495 (7th Cir. 2008) (discussing the factual relatedness of the jurisdiction-invoking and supplemental claim), Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int'l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 814 (9th Cir. 2002) (allowing exercise of jurisdiction when facts underlying the jurisdiction-invoking claim “‘ar[o]se from the same transaction and reified] on identical facts for their resolution” of the supplemental claim).
XVI. The Seventh Circuit has identified three situations where, if one of the § 1367(c) factors is present, a court should nonetheless retain jurisdiction: “[1] where the statute of limitation would bar the refiling of the supplemental claims in state court, ..; [2] where substantial federal judicial resources have already been expended on the resolution of the supplemental claims; and [3} where it is
obvious how the claims should be decided.” Williams Elecs. Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted) (affirming district court’s decision to decline jurisdiction), AVI. A court can exercise this jurisdiction to enjoin an action that threatens a previously entered order. 13 Wright & Miller § 3523.2, p. 214 (citing Fafel v. DiPaola, 399 F.3d 403, 411— 15 (1st Cir. 2005)). XVI. Federal Court also has jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. XIX. — Federal jurisdiction over the proceedings will be invoked pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code Section 1343(3) and (4), with a suit in equity which is authorized by law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 133], to be brought to redress the deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Pub. L. 95-109; 91 Stat. 874, codified as 15 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED:_1 2/04/2024 EUGENE ELWIN THOMAS, Plaintiff, -against- 24-CV-07504 (MMG) MCCABE, WEISBERG & CONWAY, LLC et al., NOTICE Defendants.
MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: The Court issues this Notice to publicly file letters that the Court recerved in Chambers from the Plaintiff, which are appended to this Notice. Dated: December 4, 2024 New York, New York SO ORDERED.
2 7 iar MARGARET M. CARN TT United SEU udge
EUGENE ELWIN THOMAS, ACP 5197 PO BOX 1110 U.S.A. November 20, 2024
To: United States District Court for Southern District of New York Garnett, Margaret M. d/b/a U.S.D.] 500 Peart Street [New York, New York] [10007] “ULS.A.
In Re: Eugene Elwin Thomas et al v. McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC et al 1:24-cv-07504-MMG
Dear Judge Garnett,
I. This serves as a request for discussion to be had during the rescheduled telephone conference on or about November 26, 2024, II. Plaintiff asserts he has received defendant Deutsche Bank National! Trust Company by its counsel motion to dismiss dated on or about October 29, 2024, which seeks dismissal of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (‘’FRCP’’) 12 (b) (1) and 12 (b) (6) as well as on grounds of Res Judicata, Ill. Plaintiff currently has not received an answer for defendant McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC and more than twenty-one (21) days has lapsed at which plaintiff request that a discussion be had on whether submission of a Request for certificate of default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to plead or otherwise defend this action as fully appears from the court file and plaintiff believes a Motion for default is warranted. IV. Plaintiff believes that defendant McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC is liable for violations of specific civil rights of the plaintiff pursuant to 100 STAT. 768 PUBLIC LAW 99-361 To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to provide that any attorney who collects debts on behaif of a client shall be subject to the provisions of such Act. V. — In this instant action Plaintiff has submitted substantial evidence following a previous law suit that defendant McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC was given notice of mitigation involving the potential for deed theft as well of theft of an instrument supplied to defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company for satisfaction of the alleged debt with (1) Error Resolution Notice Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 via Registered Mail #: RE827274420US (delivered on or about August 1, 2023 marked as Exhibit ‘’B’’; (2) in re: Case #CS0290874 (Office of Comptroller of Currency marked EXHIBITS “’E”’, °F’’, and OG”, VI. Plaintiff also request that if the court accepts the filing of defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company motion to dismiss which was submitted prior to
telephone conference that a schedule be given to afford the plaintiff time to submit an adequate response.
GROUNDS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL JURSIDICTON VU. Plaintiff claims raise Federal questions that could not possibly be litigated by the lower state court i.e., New York State Supreme Court for the State of New York. VI. Plaintiff did submit Notice of Claim upon New York State office of Attorney: General as it relates to the potential for deed theft as he was solicited prior to the auction by mail that a deed theft may have been underway as it relates to his real property. IX. New York State failed fo intervene prior to auction and plaintiff has a separate issue pending in New York State Court of claims as it relates to failures to intervene. x. Plaintiff's current action mvolve damages as it relates to theft of the deed and has supplied evidence of a forensic audit to determine whether defendant’s where truthful in how it obtained the foreclosure and sale. XJ. Plaintiff duly contacted the original lender Carrington Mortgage Services LLC and they also could not validate the debt as it relates to defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. XH. The rights here sought to be redressed are rights guaranteed by contract and in accordance with, Jurisdiction over Supplemental Claims Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as hereinafter more fully appears.
XI. = =28 U.S.C, § 1367 (a) states (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. XIV. Courts have interpreted the “so related” language to be satisfied when both the jurisdiction-invoking claim and the supplemental claim derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. 13D Wright & Miller § 3567.1, p. 337. XV. Jurisdiction Upheld: Cicio v. Does, 321 F.3d 83, 97 (2d Cir. 2003), Houskins v. Sheahan, 549 F.3d 480, 495 (7th Cir. 2008) (discussing the factual relatedness of the jurisdiction-invoking and supplemental claim), Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int'l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 814 (9th Cir. 2002) (allowing exercise of jurisdiction when facts underlying the jurisdiction-invoking claim “‘ar[o]se from the same transaction and reified] on identical facts for their resolution” of the supplemental claim).
XVI. The Seventh Circuit has identified three situations where, if one of the § 1367(c) factors is present, a court should nonetheless retain jurisdiction: “[1] where the statute of limitation would bar the refiling of the supplemental claims in state court, ..; [2] where substantial federal judicial resources have already been expended on the resolution of the supplemental claims; and [3} where it is
obvious how the claims should be decided.” Williams Elecs. Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted) (affirming district court’s decision to decline jurisdiction), AVI. A court can exercise this jurisdiction to enjoin an action that threatens a previously entered order. 13 Wright & Miller § 3523.2, p. 214 (citing Fafel v. DiPaola, 399 F.3d 403, 411— 15 (1st Cir. 2005)). XVI. Federal Court also has jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. XIX. — Federal jurisdiction over the proceedings will be invoked pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code Section 1343(3) and (4), with a suit in equity which is authorized by law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 133], to be brought to redress the deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Pub. L. 95-109; 91 Stat. 874, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1692 -1692p, 100 STAT. 768 PUBLIC LAW 99-361-JULY 9, 1986, The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) codified as 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., Fair Credit Reporting Act codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1681 ET Seq., 15 U.S.C. § 1666 in conjunction with Error Resolution Notice under!2 CFR § 1026.13. XX. A notice of claim was timely filed, with respect to plaintiff's cause of actions which occurred on or about July 10, 2023, on or about August 1, 2023, and on or about November 7, 2023, setting forth the time when, the place where and the way the incidents occurred. — XXI. This action is being commenced within the time limitations set forth in all applicable Federal and State laws and Statutes.
REQUEST TO PROCEED WITH SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE XX. Plaintiff agrees to settlement conference portion of as outlined by telephone conference schedule in the event that defendant’s agree to make an offer as it relates to compensation, punitive, special, and general damages incurred as a result of a failure to cure. XXIV. = Plaintiff requests an update of the trial schedule following telephone conference as it relates to his time to reply to motions or for discovery and all other necessary procedures.
Cc: McGlinchey Stafford C/o Gordan. Matthew J. d/b/a ESQUIRE «112 West 34" Street, Suite 1515 □
[ New York, New York] [10120-9998] U.S.A.
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC One Huntington Quadrangle, Suite 4N25 Melville, New York] [11747-9998] USA,
NOTARY ACIKNOWLEDGEMENT State of New York) ) ss JURAT County of New York) On this 2 _} _ day of November 2024, before me personally appeared Eugene Elwin Thomas ex. Rel. to me known to be the person described in as Plaintiff. And who executed the foregoing instruments and acknowledged to me ‘that Eugene Elwin Thomas ex. Rel. executed the same as his free act and deed. fo fe i, ps, f Cu 4 Aad, Lf i, A MLZ) /2 Y
Notary Signature Date BADIYAH AMIR Notary Pabdic, State of New York led in New York Coanty
Seal ay a 7 Ne Lo Fhe = igh f Meoni) Autograph: lam 7 7 - Without Recourse/Accepted for Honor/ SUPRA PROTEST pursuant to TWEA 7(e), 8(a) 40 Stat 411
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) mre ne ene nen nnn ne nn nn ne nnn ee ee ) □ EUGENE ELWIN THOMAS ex rel., ) Case No, 1:24-cv-07504-MMG Plaintiffs) ) -Against- } ) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE : ) McCABE WEISBERG & CONWAY, LLC, ) DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST ) COMPANY et al. ) Defendants(s) ) eee ee
I eugene ~ elwin: thomas the undersigned, being duly sworn, depose and say: I am over the age of 18 years old, and I have a principal address located at ACP 5197 PO BOX 1110 Albany, New York 12201-1110
On or about November 2! 2024, I served Letter Request prior to telephone conference,
_ by mailing the same in a sealed envelope certified mail to the Defendants and its counsel with insurance and postage prepaid thereon, in a post office or official depository of the USS. Postal Service addressed and to the last known address of the addressee(s) as indicated below:
Page | of 3 □
Cc: McGlinchey Stafford C/o Gordan. Matthew J. d/b/a ESQUIRE 112 West 34" Street, Suite 1515 [ New York, New York] [10120-9998] USA.
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC One Huntington Quadrangle, Suite 4N25 Melville, New York] 11747-9998] U.S.A.
Page 2 of 3
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of New York) )ss JURAT County of New Mo Kv )
On this otf day of November 2024, before me personally appeared eugene - elwin: thomas to me known to be the person described in as service. And who executed the foregoing instruments and acknowledged to me that eugene - elwin: thomas executed the same as his free act and deed. Kadyot, ba Ce NAR 1, YOR Alina. [Led f 24 Notary Signatuk Date BADIYAH AMIR Notary Pulic, State of New York vali innow York ¢ Waleed In 7 oy woe Gorlsston Lipltes Sere 2h 90) ? My commission expires
Seal
Zz of CaGAK AAC pl O Autograph: | Am:
Page 3 of 3