Mongiello V Indymac Bank Fsb
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER M. MONGIELLO,
Plaintiff,
No. 24-CV-2290 (KMK)
v.
ORDER
INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.,
Defendant.
KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:
Christopher M. Mongiello (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this Action against
IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., (“Defendant” or “IndyMac”), seeking to quiet title for real property at
issue, damages for slander of title, and alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., through its implementing regulations,
known as Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.1 et seq (the “IndyMac Action”). (See Compl. (Dkt.
No. 1).) Plaintiff now seeks the entry of default judgment against Defendant. (See, e.g., Dkt.
Nos. 42, 53.) On July 7, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to brief the issue of how his quitclaim
of the property at issue affects this Action. (See Dkt. No. 55.) Plaintiff timely responded that he
had been assigned “all right, title and interest in [the] claims” by the property’s owners,
Plaintiff’s parents. (Dkt. No. 55 at 1.)
The question of the quitclaim and Plaintiff’s parents’ assignment go to whether Plaintiff
has standing to sue. Article III of the Constitution “confines the federal judicial power to the
resolution of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423
(2021) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). “For there to be a case or controversy under Article III,
[a] plaintiff must have a ‘personal stake’ in the case—in other words, standing.” Lugo v. City of
Troy, New York, 114 F.4th 80, 86 (2d Cir. 2024) (emphasis added) (quoting TransUnion, 594
U.S. at 423). “The Supreme Court has held that parties pressing claims in federal courts must
have standing to bring their claims to ensure that there is an actual case or controversy under
Article III.” Wise v. Combe Inc., 724 F. Supp. 3d 225, 233 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (citing Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). To establish standing, the plaintiff must show
that he “has suffered, or will suffer, an injury that is ‘concrete, particularized, and actual or
imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.’”
Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, 57 (2024) (quoting Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S.
398, 409 (2013)). Furthermore, “because the plaintiffs request forward-looking relief, they must
face ‘a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.’” Id. at 58 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414
U.S. 488, 496 (1974)).
“In certain cases, an ‘assignee of a claim [has] standing to assert the injury in fact
suffered by the assignor.’” MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Tech. Ins. Co., Inc., No. 18-
CV-8036, 2020 WL 91540, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2020) (quoting Vermont Agency of Nat. Res.
v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 773 (2000)). “After obtaining an assignment ‘in
exchange for some consideration running from it to the assignor,’ the assignee ‘replaces the
assignor with respect to the claim or the portion of the claim assigned, and thus stands in the
assignor's stead with respect to both injury and remedy.’” Id. (quoting Connecticut v. Physicians
Health Servs. of Conn., Inc., 287 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2002)). Crucially, a plaintiff “bears the
burden of alleging sufficient facts to support standing.” Id. (quoting Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier,
115 F.3d 1091, 1095–96 (2d Cir. 1997)). The Complaint contains no allegations as they relate to
the quitclaim or the assignment to Plaintiff. (See generally Compl.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of the
date of this Order that includes allegations sufficient to establish standing in accordance with the
above discussion. Plaintiff is advised that the Amended Complaint will completely replace, not
supplement, the Complaint. The Amended Complaint must therefore contain all claims,
defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider. If Plaintiffs fail to
timely file an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's claims may be dismissed. The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
iy
pares: White Plaine New York —
□□□ KARAS
United States District Judge