OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jose Manuel Martinez IV, proceeding pro se, brings this action against defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust (“Deutsche Bank”) and the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Rockland County (the “State Court”), for violations of his Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. Now pending is Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. #9). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.1 BACKGROUND For the purpose of ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all wellpleaded factual allegations in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, as set forth below. In 2006, plaintiff borrowed $408,000 from New Century Mortgage Corporation (“New Century”), mortgaging a property located at 16 Blauvelt Avenue, in West Haverstraw, New York (the “Property”).2 (Doc. #10-2 at 17-19).3 New Century then assigned the mortgage to Deutsche Bank. In August 2012, Deutsche Bank filed a foreclosure action against plaintiff in the State Court. Deutsche Bank purported to serve plaintiff both by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to a property plaintiff owned in Garnerville, New York, and by delivering a copy to plaintiff’s brother-in-law at the same address. (Doc. #15-2). Plaintiff answered the foreclosure action and asserted, among other defenses, that service was improper and ineffective. The State Court partially denied cross-motions for summary judgment and struck all of plaintiff’s affirmative defenses except for those relating to whether plaintiff defaulted on the mortgage. The State Court then referred plaintiff and Deutsche Bank to a referee to determine the amounts due to Deutsche Bank under the mortgage. After the referee made findings, Deutsche Bank and plaintiff again cross-moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff challenged the State Court’s prior decisions, arguing he was improperly served. On August 12, 2019, the State Court issued a decision and order confirming the referee’s report and entering a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The State Court noted that plaintiff had “formally appear[ed] in the action and request[ed] that a copy of the complaint and all notices and other papers be forwarded to [him] at an address in Florida.” (Doc. #10-12 at 3). The State Court found that plaintiff waived any defense related to a lack of personal jurisdiction because he “failed to raise the affirmative defense in opposition to [Deutsche Bank's] two motions for summary judgment,” and only argued that he was improperly served with motion papers — not the summons and complaint. (Doc. #10-12 at 5-6 & n.2). The State Court granted Deutsche Bank’s motion and ordered the Property sold. Plaintiff commenced the instant action on February 19, 2020. He alleges that, as a “long time resident of the State of Florida,” he was “unlawfully served” with notice of the foreclosure action, because he should have been served at his Florida residence. (Doc. #2 (“Compl.”)
