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.

Halabi v. Federal National Mortgage Association

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 5, 2018

SAMIR HALABI, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, ALL THE WORLD, Defendant.

         Not for Publication

          OPINION

          John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.

         This case arises from Plaintiffs claim that Defendant's 2016 foreclosure on Plaintiffs residence was unlawful. The present matter comes before the Court on Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association's ("Defendant" or "FNMA") motion to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Samir Halabi's ("Plaintiff or "Mr. Halabi") Complaint. Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. D.E. 3. Plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition to this motion, D.E. 4, [1] to which Defendant replied. D.E. 5.[2] The Court reviewed the submissions in support and in opposition, and considered the motion without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b) and L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         The following facts are derived from Plaintiffs Complaint as well as the exhibits attached to the Complaint and the exhibits attached to Defendant's motion to dismiss.[3]

         Plaintiff alleges that he purchased the property located at 460 14th Avenue, Newark, New Jersey, 07106, Block 4006, Lot: 2 ("460 14th Ave.") for $178, 500 on February 27, 2004. D.E. 1-1 pg. Id. 8. From 2004 to 2010, Plaintiff paid $23, 837.46 towards the down payment and made monthly payments of $1, 417.63, including taxes and insurance (approximately equating to a total of $142, 918.38). Id. Plaintiff believes that at the time of his purchase, the original lender manipulated the appraisal of 460 14th Ave. Id. Further, at some point following the 2004 purchase, Plaintiff believes that several banks falsely claimed ownership rights in 460 14th Ave. Id. Then, on October 4, 2016, Defendant FNMA foreclosed on 460 14th Ave. and listed the house for sale at $87, 500. Id. at pg Id. 9.

         Defendant clarifies that on February 25, 2004, Plaintiff executed a mortgage ("Mortgage") and signed a note in the amount of $160, 650 from CitiMortgage, Inc. Def. Brf, Ex. D; D.E. 3-6. The property at 460 14th Ave. was security for the loan. Id. On February 27, 2004, the Mortgage was recorded in the Office of the Essex County Register. Id.

         Defendant further demonstrates that on December 23, 2009 CitiMortgage filed a complaint in state court alleging that Mr. Halabi (in that case, the defendant) had failed to pay the required monthly amounts of $963.18 from August 1, 2009, through the date of filing. Def. Brf., Ex. C; D.E. 3-5. The Mortgage was assigned to FNMA on February 10, 2014. Def. Brf, Ex. E; D.E. 3-7. Pursuant to the assignment, FNMA was substituted as plaintiff in CitiMortgage's pending foreclosure matter. Def. Brf, Ex. F; D.E. 3-8.

         On September, 10, 2015, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, found that FNMA had served Mr. Halabi with the summons and complaint but that Mr. Halabi had failed to respond, even after default was entered against him. Def. Brf., Ex. A, D.E. 3-3. The state court, therefore, entered final foreclosure judgment against Mr. Halabi, finding that he owed FNMA $249, 358.47. Id. Thereafter, on April 26, 2016, FNMA purchased 460 14thAve. for $100 at a sheriffs sale. Def. Brf, Ex. H, D.E. 3-10.

         B. Procedural History

         In early 2017, Plaintiff filed a quiet title action for 460 14th Ave. in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County. D.E. 1-1. Defendant was served with a copy of the Complaint on February 14, 2017. Id. On March 15, 2017 Defendant removed this matter to federal court. D.E. 1. Then on March 22, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition to this motion, D.E. 4, [4] to which Defendant replied. D.E. 5. The Court then ordered Defendant to provide supplemental authority on its Rooker-Feldman analysis. Defendant complied. D.E. 8.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         a. Federal Rule of Civil ...


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.