Case ID: f-appx_312/html/0377-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mac TRUONG, Maryse Mac-Truong, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jack LITMAN, Richard Asche and Litman, Asche & Gioiella, LLP, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-1365-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 26, 2009.
    Mac Truong, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Richard M. Asche, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees. ■
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges, and BARBARA S. JONES, District Judge.
    
    
      
      . The Honorable Barbara S. Jones, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Mae Truong and Maryse Mac-Truong appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), see Truong v. Litman, No. 06 Civ 1431(SHS), 2006 WL 3408573 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2006), as well as from the district court’s unreported denial of what it construed as the Truong’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to FRCP 60(b), or as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to local rules. Upon our review of those decisions, as well as the briefs and record submitted on this appeal, we affirm.

The district court correctly found that the Truongs’ claim that the defendants violated the automatic stay provision set forth in 11 U.S.C. Section 362 is properly filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court with jurisdiction over the Truongs’ bankruptcy action. See E. Equip. And Servs. Corp. v. Factory Point Nat’l Bank, 236 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir.2001). Further, we find no ground for disturbing the district court’s holding that the Truongs have not made the difficult case for implying a private right of action under 18 U.S.C. Section 152, a criminal statute, nor for disturbing its finding that the Truong’s action for breach of contact fails to meet the jurisdiction amount required for a federal diversity action, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).

Finally, we affirm the district court’s determination denying the Truongs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint to add claims under federal civil rights statutes on the ground of futility.

For the reasons stated above, the judgment the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.