Source: http://web.mawebcenters.com/mandela/MotionToDismiss.ivnu
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:43:29+00:00

Document:
The plaintiff moves that plaintiff's emergency motion be [ismissed on the ground that this court has no jr.ri sdiction over 'tne subject matter set. forth in the motion, for the reasons set-forth in the affiaavi-cs and exhibits attached hereto marked "A". "E" , and "C".
Alpnonse Mourad and V&M Management, Inc. By Their Attorney: James P. Dillon, Jr.
Court. This has been removed to federal court and this Court has no jurisdiction, power, or authority to proceed any further or to enter any such order.
A. THIS ACTION HAS BEEN REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT.
In 1989, V&M Management filed a case against the City of Boston, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, and the Department of Revenue alleging certain matters concerning the rate of taxation and the amount of taxes being assessed against V&M Management (V&M Management v. City of Boston, Et,Al., 89-6500-D). In 1990, the Commonwealth filed a c. 93A claim against V&M Management, its officers and employees alleging violations of c. 93A (Commonwealth v. V&M Management, Et. Al. , 90-5433-D). Simultaneously, the BRA filed a counterclaim against V&M Management in 89-6500-D. Two years later, over V&M Management's continuing objection, these two cases were consolidated, and have been consolidated since that time.
if assigned Suffolk Superior Court number 95-5243-D. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a third party defendant in cause number 89-6500-D, filed a notice of removal to the federal district court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. �41. Under the terms of the statute, the removal became effective upon the filing of the notice with the Clerk of the District Court. Notice of the removal was simultaneously provided to the Clerk of the Suffolk Superior Court, and all parties were served.
Since all three cases were consolidated pursuant to Judge White's order, the instant case has been removed to federal court as well.
Defendants Mario Nicosia, et, al., have now filed a motion in this Court for an order setting aside the preliminary injunction which prohibits them from proceeding with a foreclosure sale of Plaintiffs' property.
Promptly after the filing of such notice of removal of a civil action the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State...court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.
[T]he district court supportably found that this case had been removed to the federal court on January 11, 1991. "At that point, the jurisdiction of the state court 'absolutely ceased, and that of the [federal court] immediately attached,' " Hyde Park Partners L.P. v. Connolly, 839 F.2d 837, 841 (1 Cir., 1988) (quoting Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106-CJ.S. (16 Otto) 188, 122, 27 L.Ed. 87 (1982)), and the state court was under an obligation to "proceed no further unless and until the case [wa]s remanded," 28 U.S.C. �46(e); see also Iligman, 106 U.S. (16 Otto) at 122 (once case removed, state court has "duty . . .to proceed no further"). Consequently, the purported judgment of the state court was "void ab initio," Hyde Park Partners, 839 F.2d at 842, and the district court committed no error in refusing to enter judgment in accord with it.
776 F. Supp. 626, 628 (D. Mass., 1991) [The federal court considers the case in the status it was in when it was removed, once removal is affectuated, juriodiation in the state court ceases, and any further orders in the state court are a nullity]. Even if the removal is subsequently determined to be ineffective or improper, any state court order made in the interim is a nullity and without legal effect. Hyde Park Partners L.P. v. Connolly,. supra, at 842.
Therefore, this Court has no authority to proceed any further in this matter, and Defendants' relief, if any, must come from the federal court.
1. The third party defendants have been made parties to a civil action that is now pending in the State of Massachusetts, Superior Court for Suffolk County, encaptioned V&M Management, Inc. v. City of Boston, et al. . Civil Action No. 89-6500-D.
2. The claim against the third party defendants relates to the amount of federal subsidy paid to third party plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. � 1437f.
3. This action is removable to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441.
4. Copies of all pleadings received by the third party defendants are attached hereto.
5. This removal is within thirty days of the third parties' first notice of the third party complaint and allowance of the motion seeking leave to file the third party complaint against these defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN F. WHITE, ESQ.
1. I, John F. White, Esquire, am an attorney in good standing licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
2. I, along with other counsel of record, have been retained to represent the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter.
3. On September 13, 1991, I and attorney James P. Dillon, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, attended a hearing before Judge Catherine White in the Middlesex Superior Court.
4. Counsel for the Defendants, Albert Farrah, Esq. and Roger Lehrberg, Esq., appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Defendants.
5. At the hearing, the Plaintiffs sought an order for the issuance of preliminary injunction restraining the Defendants from holding a foreclosure sale against property owned by the Plaintiff, V & M Management, Inc.
6. The property at issue is a 276 unit federally subsidized housing complex, which provides affordable section 8 housing for minority low income families, consisting currently of approximately 1,500 people.
7. The Defendants were attempting to foreclose on a mortgage securing a note issued by the Plaintiffs on or about March 29, 1985, in the original principal amount of $50,000.00.
8. The Defendants had stated, through their counsel, that they would cancel the foreclosure sale if the said $50,000.00 loan was paid off prior to auction, and the approximate demanded payoff was $320,315.00, plus fees and costs.
9. After a full hearing, Judge White issued an order on September 15, 1995, which, in part, enjoined the Defendants^ from holding the foreclosure sale and ordered the case to be transferred to Suffolk Superior Court and ".. .consolidated for all purposes with other existing related cases, i.e. Suffolk Superior Court C.A. #89-6500E and Suffolk Superior Court C.A. #90-5433D".
10. At no time after the issuance of Judge Whitens order for consolidation has counsel for the Defendants brought a motion or other court proceeding to object to order requiring the consolidation of the cases.
This affidavit is based upon personal knowledge, information and belief, and as to information and belief, I believe the same to be true.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this ____ day of December, 1995.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.