Filed: Feb. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 18-581 Weaver v. Schiavo 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 P
Summary: 18-581 Weaver v. Schiavo 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 PA..
More
18‐581
Weaver v. Schiavo
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in
the City of New York, on the 6th day of February, two thousand nineteen.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
ROBERT D. SACK,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
Everette Weaver,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v. 18‐581
Nicole E. Schiavo, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, OneWest
Bank, FSB, Caryn Edwards, Salvatore Farruto,
U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as
trustee of CVI LCF Mortgage Loan Trust 1,
Bradford Kendall, in his official capacity as,
Clerk of Dutchess County, Maria G. Rosa, in
her official capacity as Justice of the Supreme
Court, County of Dutchess, Patrick Overturf,
Defendants‐Appellees.
_____________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF‐APPELLANT: Everette Weaver, pro se, Hopewell
Junction, NY.
FOR NICOLE E. SCHIAVO, HOGAN Nicole E. Schiavo (with Chava
LOVELLS US LLP, ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Brandriss, Cameron E. Grant on the
CARYN EDWARDS, SALVATORE brief), Hogan Lovells US LLP, New
FARRUTO, PATRICK OVERTURF: York, NY.
FOR MCCABE, WEISBERG & CONWAY, No appearance.
LLC, U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE OF CVI LCF
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 1, BRADFORD
KENDALL, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS CLERK OF DUTCHESS COUNTY,
MARIA G. ROSA, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT, COUNTY OF DUTCHESS:
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Preska, Oetken, JJ.).1
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED
in part and the appeal is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellant Everette Weaver, pro se, appeals the district court’s order
denying his motions for a preliminary injunction, entry of default judgment, and
other relief. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
1 The order under appeal was issued by Judge Oetken as Part 1 Judge.
2
We lack jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal from the denial of
a motion for default judgment. See In re Wills Lines, Inc., 227 F.2d 509, 511 (2d
Cir. 1955). Nor do we have jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeals from
the denial of motions for a declaration that the mortgage assignments were void;
orders directing defendants to make changes to Weaver’s credit history and
directing the county clerk to expunge documents from property records; or a
judicial referral of Weaver’s claims for a criminal investigation. See In re
Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y., Inc., 745 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2014)
(noting that an appealable final order “ends the litigation on the merits and
leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment”). Accordingly,
insofar as Weaver appeals from these aspects of the district court’s order, the
appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The denial of a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Lynch v. City of New York, 589 F.3d 94, 99 (2d Cir. 2009). “District courts may
ordinarily grant preliminary injunctions when the party seeking the injunction
demonstrates (1) that he or she will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive
relief, and (2) either (a) that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits, or (b) that
there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair
ground for litigation, and that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of
the moving party.” Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510
(2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Irreparable harm is “the
single most important prerequisite” for relief. Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB v.
Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The district court properly denied a preliminary injunction because
Weaver provided no evidence that he would suffer irreparable harm absent
injunctive relief.
We have considered all of Weaver’s arguments and find them to be
without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court in part
and DISMISS the appeal in part.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
3