Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Public Nuisance Action Against Bank for Post-Foreclosure Practices, Plus a Criminal Case

By FindLaw Staff on September 20, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

US v. Carradine, 08-3220, concerned a challenge to a defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm with intent to distribute.  In affirming, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for self-representation.  The court also held that defendant cannot demonstrate that the district court committed plain error by proceeding with sentencing rather than providing him more time to review a report, and that the district court did not commit plain error by ordering that defendant pay the costs of impaneling the jury.  However, because the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 contains no express statement that it is retroactive, nor can any such express intent from its plain language be inferred, the district court's imposition of the 60-month mandatory minimum sentence is affirmed.


Cleveland Hous. Renewal Project v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 09-3571, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of plaintiff's motion to remand based on Burford abstention, in a public nuisance action against Deutsche Bank Trust Company and affiliated companies in connection with twenty-five vacant properties in and around Cleveland owned by defendant, claiming that the bank's business practices place homes in a "post foreclosure death spiral."

In affirming in part, the court held that the district court properly realigned the city as a plaintiff and properly held there is complete diversity between the parties for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction.  The court also held that the district court properly satisfied itself of its subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332, and that there is no error in district court's holding that plaintiff has standing to prosecute this action in federal court.  However, the district court's remand order is vacated as Burford abstention is not warranted as state interests are outweighed by the strong federal interest in affording foreign litigants a neutral forum for the adjudication of state law claims against them, and plaintiff has failed to show that its complaint presents such extraordinary circumstances as to come within that narrow exception to the exercise of federal jurisdiction represented by Burford abstention.

Related Resources:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard