OPINION & ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Dennis Riggins (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Riggins”) commenced this action on or about January 1, 2020 against Defendants Bayview Loan Services LLC (“Bayview”), Carrington Mortgage Loan Services (“Carrington”), M&T Bank, Upland Mortgage Acquisition Co. LLC (“Upland”), Wilmington Savings Funds and Society (“Wilmington”), alleging that Defendants Wilmington and Upland erroneously claimed to own 72 Magnolia Avenue in Mount Vernon, New York (“the Property”), when Plaintiff is the true owner, and Bayview, M&T, and Carrington acted in concert with Wilmington and Upland to fraudulently foreclose on the Property. (ECF No. 2.) Defendants Carrington, Upland, and Wilmington (collectively, the “Wilmington Defendants”) (ECF No. 25), and Defendants Bayview and M&T Bank (the “Bayview Defendants”) (ECF No. 41) moved to dismiss for both lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. For the following reasons the motions are GRANTED. BACKGROUND The facts in this section are drawn from the Complaint and from various judicially noticeable documents including recorded deeds1 and filings and decisions from the underlying Westchester Supreme Court foreclosure action.2 See Jackson v. New York State, 523 F. App’x 67, 68 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Matters subject to judicial notice — such as decisions in related proceedings — are properly considered on a motion to dismiss and do not require the court to consider the motion as one for summary judgment” even if such documents were submitted by defendants in support of their motion papers); Jaffer v. Hirji, No. 14-CV-2127 KMK, 2015 WL 6473033, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2015) (“On a motion to dismiss, courts may take judicial notice of public records, such as properly recorded deeds.”), aff’d, 887 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2018). I. History of the Property and Mortgage Plaintiff’s mother, Ruby Riggins, purchased the Property on June 5, 2007, and the deedwas recorded on June 26, 2007. (Ex A to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-1).) In conjunction with the purchase, Ms. Riggins borrowed $417,000 from Sterling Empire Funding Associate, a mortgage loan agreement was executed and dated June 6th, 2007 (the “Mortgage”), and the Mortgage was later recorded with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the mortgagee on June 26, 2007. (Ex B. to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-2); Compl. 18 On January 12, 2009, MERS executed a written assignment of the Mortgage to Chase Home Finance, LLC; and that assignment was recorded on August 16, 2010. (Ex. D. to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-4); Compl. 19.) A corrective assignment from MERS to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., S/B/M Chase Home Finance LLC (“Chase”) was dated December 19, 2013, and recorded January 30, 2014. (ECF No. 26-4; Compl. 20.) By deed dated October 19, 2009 and recorded on January 22, 2010, Sandra Riggins, as executrix of the Estate of Ruby Riggins, conveyed the remainder of the Property to Mr. Riggins. (Ex. E to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-5).) On April 3, 2014, Chase assigned the Mortgage to Bayview, which was recorded June 11, 2014. (Ex. F. to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-6); Compl. 21.) II. The State Foreclosure Action On September 9, 2014, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC sued Sandra Riggins, as Executrix of the Estate of Ruby Riggins; Dennis Riggins; and others in Westchester County Supreme Court (“the State Foreclosure Action”). (Ex. G to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-7); Ex. A to Roberts Decl. (ECF No. 43-1); hereinafter, the “Foreclosure Complaint”).) The Foreclosure Complaint alleges that beginning with the August 1, 2008 payment, Mr. Riggins and others failed to pay as required by the terms of the Mortgage. (Id.). Bayview filed an affidavit of service of the Foreclosure Complaint and summons on Mr. Riggins. (Ex. B. to Roberts Decl. (ECF No. 43-2).) Multiple foreclosure settlement conferences were held. (Ex. H to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-8).) Throughout the process, Mr. Riggins failed to provide necessary documents for a loan modification. (Ex. M. to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-13).) On July 9, 2015, Bayview moved for an order of reference to a court-appointed referee (the “Referee”), which was entered October 8, 2015. (Ex. J to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-10); Ex. D to Roberts Decl. (ECF No. 43-4).) On March 31, 2016, Bayview filed a Motion for a Judgment of Foreclosure (“Motion for JFS”) requesting that the Foreclosure Court adopt the Referee’s report that computed the total sum owed to Bayview through and including December 17, 2015 to be $792,455.16. (Ex. K to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-11).) On or about May 13, 2016, Mr. Riggins submitted his opposition to the Motion for JFS and averred that (1) Bayview committed fraud, (2) Bayview failed to abide by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules, (3) Bayview failed to provide and/or failed to honor a loan modification, (4) Carrington, as the successor servicer failed to provide a loan modification application, (5) Bayview lacked standing to foreclose, (6) the note and mortgage had been improperly assigned, and (7) the pooling and servicing agreement was violated. (Ex. L to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-12); Ex. E to Roberts Decl. (ECF No. 43-5).) On June 13, 2016, Bayview filed a reply affirmation in further support of its Motion for JFS and contended that Bayview proceeded to foreclosure because Mr. Riggins failed to provide certain documents required to complete any loan modification. (Ex. M to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-13).) Mr. Riggins filed reply affidavits on January 24, 2017 and September 27, 2017 contending that Bayview failed to provide a modification and questioning, inter alia, the assignment of the Mortgage to different entities. (Ex. N to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-14).) The Foreclosure Court entered judgment in Bayview’s favor in the amount of $792,455.16, ratified the Referee’s report, and noted that the Foreclosure Court had reviewed oppositions and replies filed, held over a dozen settlement conferences, and that Mr. Riggins failed to complete a modification application. (Ex. O to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-15) (“Foreclosure Judgment”).) A notice of sale was filed on June 7, 2018. (Ex. P to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-16).) Mr. Riggins attempted to move by order to show on June 27, 2018 and February 8, 2019 — challenging standing, alleging violation of the trust documents, demanding to see the original note and mortgage, and asserting he was not properly served — but the Foreclosure Court refused to sign his proposed these orders (Exs. S, X to Miller Decl. (ECF Nos. 26-19 and 26-24). Mr. Riggins moved by order to show cause dated February 11, 2019, and then by notice motion dated April 4, 2019, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, arguing that he was not properly served and challenging standing. (Exs. Y and Z to Miller Decl. (ECF Nos. 26-25, 26-26); Exs. O and P to Roberts Decl. (ECF No. 43-15, 43-16).) The Foreclosure Court denied Mr. Riggins motions, noting “the court conferenced this case for years, and Mr. Riggins was given many opportunities to be heard.” (Exs. K, Q to Roberts Decl. (ECF No. 43-11, 43-18); Exs. V, AA to Miller Decl. (ECF Nos. 26-22, 26-28).) Mr. Riggins also filed two purported answers, dated September 7, 2018, and January 11, 2019, respectively, alleging lack of standing generally, Carrington lacked authority, and Wilmington committed fraud, and demanded to see the original loan documents. (Ex. W to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-23).) On July 10, 2019, Mr. Riggins filed a notice of appeal of the Foreclosure Court’s June 2019 order denying Mr. Riggins’ motion to vacate. (Ex. R to Roberts Decl. (ECF No. 43-19); Ex. BB to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-29).) By email dated March 26, 2020, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division — Second Judicial Department informed counsel for Wilmington that Mr. Riggins’ appeal was not perfected and therefore had been dismissed. (Ex. BB to Miller Decl. (ECF No. 26-29).) III. The Instant Federal Action Plaintiff filed this action on January 2, 2020 and alleged that he owns the Property (Compl.
