Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HARRIET NICHOLSON, PLAINTIFF V. BANK OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT CIV.:1:22-CV-03177
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE Now Comes Plaintiff Harriet Nicholosn and files this Plaintiff’s Request To Take Judicial Notice of Related Court records from prior Texas action1 and would show unto the court the following: Plaintiff Harriet Nicholson filed this independent action complaining the Texas’ Amended FInal Judgment” did not not comply with the oral rendition of judgment. The Amended Final Judgment was absent of reinstating Plaintiff’s ownership rights and awarding any court costs agreed by Mr. Richard Danner, BONY”s counsel.2 The attached itemized bill of costs supports Plaintiff’s contention the “Texas’ Amended Judgment” did not align with the oral rendition of judgment awarding costs that was agreed and deliberately omitted by Mr. Danner, BONY’s counsel in the “Amended Final Judgment.” Dated: March 20, 2024 /s/ Harriet Nicholson
1SeeShuttlesworthv.CityofBirmingham,394U.S.147,157,89S.Ct.935,22L.Ed.2d162(1969)(takingjudicial noticeofrecordinpriorlitigationbetweensameparties); 2SeeEx.A,Texas’prioractionagreedbillofcostsbyBONY’scounsel,Mr.RichardDwayneDanner EX. A
MEMO ENDORSED: On March 21, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Harriet Nicholson filed a request for this Court to take judicial notice of certain court documents. (Dkt. No. 134) Previously, on March 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (Dkt. No. 131) regarding Magistrate Judge Parker’s November 7, 2022 Report and Recommendation concerning Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 83); this Court’s August 28, 2023 order adopting Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation and dismissing the case (Dkt. No. 105); the Clerk of Court’s January 17, 2024 judgment entered against Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 116); and this Court’s February 21, 2024 order denying Plaintiff's subsequent requests for relief. (Dkt. No. 128) On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended notice of appeal regarding the same matters. (Dkt. No. 133). Generally, “filing a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction.” Am. Transit Ins. Co. v. Bilyk, 514 F. Supp. 3d 463, 470 (E.D.N.Y. 2021); see Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). And “[w]here the appeal is from a final judgment, the district court can take only limited action during pendency of the appeal.” Satcom Int’] Grp. PLC v. Orbcomm Int’] Partners, L.P., 55 F. Supp. 2d 231, 233 (S.D.N.Y. 1999 Here, Plaintiff's notice of appeal relates to, inter alia, this Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 105), and the final judgment (Dkt. No. 116). As a result of Plaintiff's filing of a notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction to address Plaintiff's most recent motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion (Dkt. No. 134). SO Pi» oul 2 onde Paul G. Gardephe United States District Judge Date: March 29, 2024
THOMAS A. WILDER DISTRICT CLERK April 29, 2022
Thomas A. Wilder Tarrant County District Clerk 100 N. Calhoun St. Ft. Worth, TX 76196
Via: E-Filing Re: Court Costs Nicholson v. Bank of New York Mellon, et al Cause No. 342-262692-12 Dear Mr. Wilder, This letter is to provide you with an itemized list of costs. A copy of this filing is being provided to defendants The itemized Costs are as follows: • Filing Fees $249.00 • Service of Process Fees $415.00 • Mediation $1,060.00 • Court Report Fees $160.00 Total $1,874.00 I have attached copy of the trial court's judgment awarding costs and a copy of the email from Timothy Baker and previous letter sent to you and the chain with defendant's counsel working out the proper itemization of costs. Please tax costs against the defendants and send a cost bill to them.
/s/ Harriet Nicholson 342-262692-12 FILED TARRANT COUNTY CAUSE NO. 342-262692-12 9/15/2020 12:17 PM THOMAS A. WILDER DISTRICT CLERK HARRIET NICHOLSON, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § § OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON § . FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS § = □ TRUSTEE FOR THE § aoe 8 CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWMBS, § O 2 INC., CWMBS REFORMING LOAN § Dep □ □□□□□ REMIC TRUST CERTIFICATES § So, □ FF SERIES 2005-R2, et al. § of ~ □□ seer mom § ms: Defendants. § 342nd JUDICIAL DISTRIG?F~ ™ == AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT On this day the Court considered the following: (1) Defendant David Stockman's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (2) Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.'s Traditional and No- Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment. After reviewing the motions, all objections and replies filed therewith, the summary judgment evidence presented, arguments of the parties and applicable law, the Court enters the following orders: {1) IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT DAVID STOCKMAN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED; (2) IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.'S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE GRANTED; (3) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COSTS OF COURT AND ATTORNEYS' FEES ARE TO BE BORNE BY THE PARTY INCURRING SAME. This Final Judgment, together with the court’s prior “Final Judgment” date October 26, 2017, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is incorporated herein and together constitute a final, appealable judgment. All relief not expressly granted herein is denied. Thi f pi ¢ □□□□□□ 9 A055 oF all Parh?S dad atl claws SIGNED: Ww hetere □□ DISTRICT (JUDGE PRESIDING Lut te E-MAILEDNT = ots, v5, ACERTIFIED COPY SONG, ATTEST: 10/22/2024 35 eV 2} THOMAS A. WILDER “ CAUSE NO. 342-262692-12 HARRIET NICHOLSON, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § § OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS § THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON § FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS § TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWMBS, § INC., CWMBS REFORMING LOAN § REMIC TRUST CERTIFICATES § SERIES 2005-R2, et al. § § Defendants. § 342nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT FINAL JUDGMENT On October 26, 2017, the Court held a hearing in the above-entitled and numbered cause and entered orders related to all prior matter before the Court. The Court finds that all matters are now resolved and enters this Fina! Judgement. /f is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Instrument Nos. D212187326 and D214164490, both recorded in the Real Property Records of Tarrant County, Texas, are both INVALID and VOID in ail respects. J is further, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this Final Judgment may be recorded in the Real Property Records of Tarrant County, Texas. It is further, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff is awarded court costs. □□□ aroun of SF? ft is further, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all of Plaintiffs remaining claims are dismissed with prejudice. Jt is further, dolauliz (ALL SERVED Vid FAX SERVE COPIES ON ALL OTHERS VENINILED tie Page OR, A CERTIFIED COPY £592 SQNG% ATTEST: 10/22/2021 Lenn. ae Ey: THOMAS A. WILDER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all relief not expressly granted herein is denied. SIGNED:_Gcaser 2, 20/7 e Z Ge LE dias Leg{ 7 / ___ JUDGE WADE BIRDWELL, PRESIDING FINAL JUDGMENT “cee, Page 2 See. ACERTIFIED COPY 342-262692-12 FILED TARRANT COUNTY 1/16/2018 12:00 AM Law Office of Timothy E. Baker DISTRICT CLERK 1205 S. Greenville Avenue Allen, TX 75002 Phone: 214-727-4956 Fax: 214-506-6015 www.timbakerlaw.com January 15, 2018 Thomas A.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon (Nicholson v. The Bank of New York Mellon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.