UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ANTONIO BEY and 

RENEE SMITH-BEY, 

 Case No. 2:14-cv-13723 

 Plaintiffs, Judge David M. Lawson 

v. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

 

LNV CORPORATION and 

MGC MORTGAGE, INC., 

 Defendants. 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JOINDER OF CLAIMS 

(DE 25) 

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ December 22, 2014 Motion for Joinder of 

Claims (DE 25). Defendants have filed an informative response (DE 27), which 

has helped to educate the Court as to the procedural history in Case No. 14 – 

13990, a recently closed matter involving the same three parties. In a separate 

order entered this date (DE 30), the Court has denied Plaintiffs’ request to file a 

reply brief (DE 29) as untimely and futile. For the reasons stated below, the 

Plaintiffs’ motion (DE 25) is DENIED. 

Plaintiffs filed their seven count Complaint in the instant case on September 

25, 2014 (DE 1), alleging various state and federal causes of action against 

Defendants, including alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 

2:14-cv-13723-DML-APP Doc # 30 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 382
conspiracy, malicious abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, 

fraud and misrepresentation, trespass and mail fraud. Less than two weeks later, 

on or about October 8, 2014, Defendant LNV Corporation (“LNV”) filed an action 

in state court, specifically the 33rd District Court in Woodhaven, Michigan, seeking 

to evict Plaintiffs from the real property which is at issue here. See DE 27 at 7, DE 

27-2. This allegedly took place after a mortgage foreclosure, a sheriff’s sale and 

the expiration of the redemption period. Soon thereafter, on October 16, 2014, the 

Beys removed the state court action to this Court, where it was given Case No. 14-

cv-13990, assigned to the Honorable Judith E. Levy and subsequently reassigned 

to the Honorable David M. Lawson (hereinafter the “eviction case”).1

 In an 

opinion and order entered on December 15, 2014, this Court remanded the eviction 

case back to state court “for want of jurisdiction because (1) the complaint raises 

no claims arising under federal law that could support federal question jurisdiction; 

and (2) removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction is improper because the 

defendants reside in Michigan.” See DE 16 (Case No. 14-cv-13990). One week 

later, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for joinder of claims, noting the existence 

of the eviction case and identifying it as a case which had been “removed to federal 

court” and assigned Case No. 14-cv-13990. DE 25 at ¶3. In a subsequent motion, 

                                                            

1 On November 12, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the case at bar (DE 15), which 

appears to duplicate the original complaint (DE 1) with the exception of the signature page 

(compare DE 1 at 9, DE 15 at 9) and Exhibit A – Affidavit of Facts (DE 1 at 10-12).

2:14-cv-13723-DML-APP Doc # 30 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 383
Plaintiffs explained that they were not aware of the remand order until January 11, 

2015. DE 29 at 2. 

It would appear from Plaintiffs’ very sparse motion that they are seeking to 

consolidate two related cases which were both simultaneously, albeit briefly, 

pending before this Court, rather than attempting to “join” claims which are 

pending in two different courts. Irrespective of whether they are aware that the 

eviction case has been remanded to state court, the fact remains that it is no longer 

pending before this Court and, therefore, cannot be joined or consolidated. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (“Consolidation.”).2

 Due to the remand order in the eviction 

case, the instant motion is denied as moot. 

Moreover, the Court has already ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over the 

claims made in the eviction case. See DE 16 (Case No. 14-13990). Plaintiffs’ 

current attempt to bring the two cases back together again in federal court is, 

accordingly, barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, as this Court has 

already issued a threshold, jurisdictional ruling which is adverse to the position 

taken by Plaintiffs in this motion. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970) 

(Collateral estoppel “means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once 

                                                            

2 Had the eviction case not been remanded, judicial economy likely would have favored 

consolidation of the two cases within this Court; however, the eviction case has indeed been 

remanded, and the two cases are now pending in different courts, one state and one federal.

2:14-cv-13723-DML-APP Doc # 30 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 384
been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated 

between the same parties in any future lawsuit.”). 

Finally, even if the Court’s actions were not constrained by its prior remand 

order in the eviction case, and to the extent that Plaintiffs are truly requesting a 

joinder of claims, the Court notes that the “claims” which the plaintiffs seek to join 

to this action are not their own claims against the defendants, but rather, the 

Defendants’ claims against them. It would appear that Plaintiffs’ assertions in the 

now remanded eviction case are defenses, not claims. As such, the joinder of 

claims rule is inapplicable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) (“A party asserting a claim, 

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or 

alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.”) (emphasis 

added). 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion (DE 25) is DENIED. 

 

Dated: February 4, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on 

February 4, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the Honorable 

 Anthony P. Patti 

2:14-cv-13723-DML-APP Doc # 30 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 385