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.

Cuc v. U.S. Bank

December 8, 2011

CUC
v.
U.S. BANK, N.A.



Order Form (01/2005)

Name of Assigned Judge Harry D. Leinenweber Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons given below, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' complaint as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Furthermore, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case, it denies as moot Plaintiffs' motions for a more definite statement and to compel production of certain documents [Dkt. 18, 19].

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

Mailed AO 450 form.

STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION

In 2008, Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. moved to foreclose on the home of Plaintiffs Trandafir and Lavinia Cuc in Lake County, Illinois. The Circuit Court of Lake County entered a judgment of foreclosure on October 15, 2008, and confirmed the sale on February 19, 2010. On April 30, 2010, and May 28, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed motions in Circuit Court, asking to have the foreclosure vacated. They claimed that the trustee's sale was void because, among other reasons, the Cucs never received notice of the foreclosure and U.S. Bank never properly held the mortgage note. On July 9, 2010, the Circuit Court judge struck those motions and pleadings, claiming that she lacked jurisdiction over the case once the sale was confirmed.

Instead of appealing that decision, Plaintiffs filed this Complaint for "wrongful foreclosure," again alleging a failure of notice and that U.S. Bank was not the proper note-holder. They ask this Court to declare that the trustee's sale was void, that U.S. Bank has no interest in the property, and that the Lake County Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the foreclosure. They also ask this Court to enjoin any transfer of the property, and to award them damages. In their reply to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs re-frame their argument that Defendant is not a note-holder as a standing issue, and claim that Illinois state courts lack jurisdiction over the bank.

Defendant moves to dismiss this lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing that this Court should abstain from hearing the case under the Younger doctrine. As discussed below, Younger is inapplicable because the state court proceedings have concluded; nonetheless, this Court lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiffs ask it to set aside a state court judgment.

LEGAL STANDARD

In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts Plaintiffs' well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and draws all inferences in their favor. Anchor Bank, F.S.B. v. Hofer, 649 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2011). It construes pro se pleadings with a liberal eye, and does not hold them to lawyerly standards. Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 552 (7th Cir. 2005).

Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction; District Courts ordinarily gain jurisdiction either when a case involves federal law, or when it arises between citizens of different states and the amount in ...


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.