The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-2446•Andre Cobige v. Phh Mortgage Corporation
15-2446Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitMar 28, 2016
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 28, 2016*
Decided March 28, 2016
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 15-2446
ANDRE COBIGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 14 C 9340
Virginia M. Kendall,
Judge.
O R D E R
Andre Cobige’s wife, Tiffani Wilson, defaulted on her mortgage, and the holder
of the note and mortgage filed a foreclosure action in an Illinois circuit court. Cobige
tried to intervene in the case, but the state court denied that request because Cobige did
not have an ownership interest in the house or any potential liability for the defaulted
note. The state court foreclosed the mortgage and later, in July 2014, confirmed a judicial
sale of the residence. Five months later Cobige filed this suit, marking on the complaint
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See F ED. R. A PP . P.
34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 15-2446 Page 2
that it was brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). His amended complaint is nearly identical (font and all) to
several other complaints that we have found to be too insubstantial to invoke a federal
court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. See Carter v. Homeward Residential, Inc., 794 F.3d 806
(7th Cir. 2015); Mimms v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 15-2454, 2016 WL 234435
(7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2016) (nonprecedential decision); Sturdivant v. Select Portfolio Servicing,
Inc., 602 F. App’x 351 (7th Cir. 2015). The suit names several defendants, including
PHH Mortgage Corporation, which filed the foreclosure action, and claims that the state
proceeding was invalid on the ground that PHH “was not the true owner” of the note.
On the defendants’ motion, the district court dismissed the action for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
Cobige’s appeal from that decision is frivolous. His appellate brief—like his
amended complaint in the district court—is identical to the briefs we saw in Mimms,
Carter, and Sturdivant. As in those cases, the rambling, nonsensical allegations in
Cobige’s amended complaint are too insubstantial to have invoked the district court’s
federal-question jurisdiction. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537–38 (1974); Avila v.
Pappas, 591 F.3d 552, 555 (7th Cir. 2010). Adding to that, there is no case or controversy as
Cobige was not the homeowner. See Parvati Corp. v. City of Oak Forest, 630 F.3d 512,
516–17 (7th Cir. 2010) (explaining that developer lacked standing after conveying
ownership to another party). Cobige has not cited any authority, nor can we find any,
suggesting that under Illinois law (which governs the home loan in this case) a person
who is not party to a residential mortgage would have a right to intervene in a
foreclosure action. In fact, the Illinois court denied Cobige’s request to intervene.
Finally, we note that Cobige filed this appeal after we issued our published
opinion in Carter. Cobige was told that this case was taken in bad faith when the district
court rightly denied him leave to appeal in forma pauperis. He ignored the district court.
We thus order him to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for filing a
frivolous appeal and direct Cobige to respond within 14 days of the date of this order.
See F ED. R. APP . P. 38 (“If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may,
after . . . notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just
damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”). We caution future litigants who
choose to file these frivolous lawsuits that the plaintiffs in Mimms were fined $1,000.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.