the judge in a foreclosure and the plaintiff attempted to invoke the court's supplemental jurisdiction to assert two state law claims against mr crimm co but this court has held that there is no supplemental jurisdiction when the court doesn't have original jurisdiction to anchor the case to the federal courts in the st place and that's exactly what we have here the district court was extremely patient with this plaintiff who was representing himself  plaintiff had the opportunity to file a complaint an amended complaint a nd many a complaint and each time the plaintiff failed to allege the citizenship of the each of the defendants which could establish diversity jurisdiction and each time the pla failed to state a claim under federal law now the factual basis for the complaint is that the original foreclosure was invalid because the original mortgage people's choice transferred that mortgage while it was in bankruptcy proceedings and didn't get authority from the bankruptcy court but this court just held in the mortgage foreclosure action itself just in september that the bankruptcy court did in fact give people choice the authority to transfer that court were to find that there was original jurisdiction with respect to one of mr crinkles co defendants the plaintiff still failed to state a claim under state law asserted to state claims one for professional negligence and one for violation and forty nine of the new york's general business law in new york you can have a professional negligence claim unless you have privity with the attorney unless there is some exception for fraud or collusion and in this case the complaint doesn't allege that the plaintiff had an attorney client relationship with crim co co represented the company that they know they represented s l f which was eventually at the mortgage and then was consumer oriented conduct that conduct this directed to consumers as a whole and not at individuals and in this case the allegedly improper foreclosure and the subsequent addiction proceeding is it isn't unique to these parties it's not directed a consumers generally and for that reason the plaintiff also failed to state a claim under g p l three hundred and forty nine dollars so just to conclude there was no supplemental jurisdiction here because the court lacked the original jurisdiction and the plaintiff also in any neither diversity nor federal question jurisdiction as this court may be aware this is the plaintiff's appellants rd attempt to undo a judgment of foreclosure and sale in a related district court foreclosure action commenced in two thousand and sixteen on an investment property which was later appealed in this court and is currently pending not content the plaintiff appellant roddie commenced an action in two thousand and seventeen under the federal debt collection practices act and various new york state claims which if the c p a claims was subsequently dismissed with prejudice against appellee defendants  l o p after the move for dismissal and the two thousand and seventeen action this was never appealed similarly in the instant action this court should affirm the district court's decision for the following reasons the pla ruddy despite the many chances provided by the district court because of his pro se status failed to properly plead diversity jurisdiction plaintiff appellate simply argues that because  had diversity jurisdiction in the two thousand and sixteen foreclosure action it follows that he has diversity jurisdiction in this action this is not the case as no diversity jurisdiction was invoked by plaintiff ronnie regarding the citizenship appellee defendants lott limited liability members and limited liability partners despite the filing of the subsequent amended complaints and the guidance in the district court's order given by kogan ready never played diversity of citizenship with any the relevant provisions of the f t c only apply to the activities of a debt collector which is defined as any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce with the principal purpose which is the collection of any debts or who regularly we're not served with the papers here based on the collateral estoppel from the two thousand and sixteen action and the fact that the two thousand and seventeen action already dismissed the f court have found that such an action to enforce an interest in real property does not qualify as that collection regarding the claims involving violations of the federal credit reporting act the district court was correct in its analysis consumer agency or that any alleged harm or loss of credit resulted in say with regard to the additional arguments raised in the appeal regarding the bid price and that the plaintiff in the underlying two thousand and sixteen foreclosure action failed to name the st mortgagee the court must ignore those arguments because they were never and they were never raised and were only raised st on this appeal if there's any questions i rest on the br