Riley v. Rivers ( 2018 )

17-1189-cv
Riley v. Rivers
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY
FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.
WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST
CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION
ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
2 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
3 8th day of February, two thousand eighteen.
4
5 PRESENT:
6 ROBERT D. SACK,
7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
8 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 _____________________________________
11
12 BARBARA J. RILEY,
13
14 Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16 v. 17-1189-cv
17
18 PATRICIA RIVERS, AKA PATRICIA A. HAMM, AKA
19 PATRICIA A. ELLIS, FEDERAL NATIONAL
20 MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, MORTGAGE
21 ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
22 ROBERT HAMM, AKA ROBERT D. HAMM,
23
24 Defendants-Appellees,
25
26 AAMES FUNDING CORPORATION, CITI MORTGAGE
27 INCORPORATED, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
28
29 Defendants.
30 _____________________________________
31
32
1
2 For Plaintiff-Appellant: Barbara J. Riley, proceeding pro se,
3 Jacksonville, Florida.
4
5 For Defendants-Appellees: Curtis V. Trinko, Law Offices of Curtis V.
6 Trinko, LLP, New York, New York.
7
8 Allison M. Funk, Allison J. Schoenthal, Leah
9 Edmunds, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New
10 York, New York.
11
12 Brian P. Scibetta, Richard P. Haber, Buckley
13 Madole, P.C., New York, New York.
14
15 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
16 York (Irizarry, C.J.; Mann, C.M.J.).
17 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
18 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
19 Plaintiff-Appellant Barbara J. Riley, proceeding pro se, appeals from a March 23, 2017
20 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissing her
21 quiet title, tortious inference with contract, and fraud claims against the defendants. Riley sought
22 to quiet title to real property in Queens, New York, bringing fraud and other claims against various
23 individuals and entities. Riley also alleged that the defendant mortgage lenders had improperly
24 allowed Defendant-Appellee Patricia Rivers to secure loans on the property, which Riley asserted
25 Rivers did not rightfully possess. The district court dismissed Riley’s Second Amended
26 Complaint for failure to state a claim. In addition to Riley’s appeal, Rivers moves to submit into
27 the record her retainer agreement with her attorneys. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
28 underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
2
1 We begin with Rivers’s motion to supplement the record on appeal. We will consider
2 evidence not before the district court in “extraordinary circumstances.” Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.
3 v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1975); see Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (defining the record on
4 appeal as, in relevant part, “the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court”); Loria v.
5 Gorman, 306 F.3d 1271, 1280 n.2 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Ordinarily, material not included in the record
6 on appeal will not be considered.”). Since the retainer agreement Rivers wishes to add to the
7 record was not before the district court and consideration of the exhibit would make no difference
8 in our resolution of this appeal, the “extraordinary circumstances” needed to expand the record are
9 not present. Accordingly, Rivers’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.
10 Moving on to the merits of Riley’s appeal, “[w]e review de novo a district court’s dismissal
11 of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual
12 allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.”
13 Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). Upon review, we conclude
14 that the district court properly dismissed Riley’s claims. We affirm for substantially the reasons
15 stated in the magistrate judge’s thorough and well-reasoned September 19, 2016 Report and
16 Recommendation, which was adopted in its entirety by the district court. Additionally, to the
17 extent that Riley alleges that she should have been instructed on how to replead her claims, we
18 discern no error in the proceedings below. Riley twice amended her complaint, and nothing in
19 the record suggests that a third amendment would cure the Second Amended Complaint’s
20 deficiencies. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).
3
1 We have considered all of Riley’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
2 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
3
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
4