Nolan v. Buonassissi, Henning & Lash, P.C., No. 8:2012cv00325 - Document 12 (D. Md. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 8 motion for summary judgment, DISMISSING Plaintiffs complaint, DENYING as moot 5 motion to dismiss, DENYING as moot 9 second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and DIRECTING the Clerk to CLOSE this case (c/m to Plaintiff 8/17/12 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/17/12. (sat, Chambers)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : VICKI R. NOLAN : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 12-0325 : BUONASSISSI, HENNING & LASH, P.C. : MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Vicki R. Nolan commenced this action on February 2, 2012, by filing a petition for redress of fraud by concealment inartfully drafted Buonassissi, authority with one-page Henning, with & regard the complaint Lash to court. the P.C. (ECF alleges acted promissory fashion, Plaintiff then that 1). The Defendant without proof note her during state court foreclosure proceedings. conclusory No. states for home (Id. at 1).1 that of In Defendant intentionally failed to disclose facts that it had a duty to disclose in order to induce her to surrender the home. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis along with her complaint, and the court granted her motion one week later. 1 On February 24, 2012, Defendant moved to dismiss Defendant apparently represented the substitute trustees in the underlying state court action. (ECF No. 10-1, at 1). The foreclosure sale took place in early 2011, and the state court issued an order ratifying that sale on August 10, 2011. pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that Plaintiff s claim was barred by the Younger abstention doctrine and that the claim also failed on the merits. 5).2 (ECF No. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment two weeks later. (ECF No. 8).3 Defendant has opposed that motion. On the same day that Plaintiff filed her motion for summary judgment, Defendant, she filed Emigrant a similar Mortgage case in Corporation this court against ( Emigrant ), and Retained Realty, Inc. ( Retained Realty ), and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint in that case alleged that the judgment of foreclosure obtained on her home was void on its face. Nolan v. Buonassassi et al. ( Nolan II ), DKC 12-0741 (D.Md. Mar. 20, 2012), ECF No. 1, at 1. On March 20, 2012, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting Plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the case sua sponte on the basis of the Rooker- Feldman doctrine. 2 The docket of the state court proceedings indicates that the state court case is now closed. 3 Plaintiff filed a second application to proceed in forma pauperis along with her summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 9). In light of the court s decision to grant Plaintiff s initial request to proceed in forma pauperis, this motion will be denied as moot. 2 The arguments Plaintiff presents in her summary judgment motion demonstrate that the purpose of the present action is also to challenge the validity of the state court judgment in the underlying foreclosure proceedings. Indeed, that motion sets forth virtually the same arguments as those presented in the complaint in Nolan II. Both challenge, in various ways, the standing of Defendant, Emigrant, and Retained Realty to bring the foreclosure suit in state courts and emphasize that the underlying judgment is void.4 Adjudication of these issues necessarily involves review of the state court proceedings and a determination of whether those proceedings were proper. This court, however, lacks jurisdiction to consider the validity of a judgment issued by a state court. Adkins v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 456, 463-64 (4th Cir. 2006) ( The Rooker-Feldman doctrine . . . deprives district cases brought caused by courts by of subject state-court state-court losers judgments matter jurisdiction complaining rendered before over of injuries the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments. (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 4 U.S. 280, 284 (2005))). Plaintiff did not, however, name Emigrant and Retained Realty as parties to this action in her complaint. 3 Plaintiff s motion for summary judgment, therefore, fails, and her complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.5 Accordingly, it is this 17th day of August, 2012, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ORDERED that: 1. The motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Vicki R. Nolan (ECF No. 8) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; 2. The complaint BE, and the same hereby IS, DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 3. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Buonassissi, Henning, & Lash P.C. (ECF No. 5) BE and the same hereby IS, DENIED AS MOOT; 4. The second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Vicki R. Nolan (ECF No. 9) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED AS MOOT; and, 5 Even if Rooker-Feldman did not bar Plaintiff s claim, the court would nonetheless dismiss the complaint sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The complaint states that Plaintiff s claim is based in fraud, but given the absence of factual allegations within the complaint, it wholly fails to satisfy the pleading standards required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b). 4 5. The Memorandum Buonassissi, clerk Opinion Henning, is directed and Order & Lash to to P.C. transmit copies counsel for and directly to of the Defendant Plaintiff Vicki R. Nolan and to CLOSE this case. ________/s/_________________ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.