Saint Dic et al v. Wells Fargo Bank
| Samuel Saint Dic and Yves Rose Saint Dic |
| Wells Fargo Bank |
| 3:2019cv30137 |
| October 10, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Mark G Mastroianni |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
| 12 U.S.C. § 191 Bank Foreclosure |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 1, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 62 MANDATE of USCA as to #57 Notice of Appeal, filed by Samuel Saint Dic. Appeal #57 Terminated (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 61 USCA Judgment as to #57 Notice of Appeal filed by Samuel Saint Dic. AFFIRMED... (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 59 USCA Case Number 20-1101 for #57 Notice of Appeal filed by Samuel Saint Dic. (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 58 Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re #57 Notice of Appeal.(Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 60 USCA Appeal Fees received $505.00 receipt number 1BST078368 re #57 Notice of Appeal, filed by Samuel Saint Dic (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 57 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 56 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, #52 Order Dismissing Case by Samuel Saint Dic NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can be downloaded from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at #http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at #http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at #http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 2/6/2020. ( Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 56 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #55 Motion for Reconsideration, as Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that reconsideration is warranted. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to appeal the court's dismissal of his complaint, he shall comply with Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure by, among other requirements, filing a Notice of Appeal and paying the applicable filing fee. (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 55 MOTION for Reconsideration by Samuel Saint Dic, Yves Rose Saint Dic. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits) (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 54 Copy re #51 Order on Motion to Strike,, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, #52 Order Dismissing Case mailed to Samuel Saint-Dic and Yves R. Saint-Dic on 12/11/19. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 53 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered: ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 52 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. Order of Dismissal. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 51 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered as follows: For the reasons stated, the court ALLOWS Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. #23 ), DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. #47 ), and hereby DISMISSES THIS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE. This case may now be closed. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 50 Copy re 49 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,, mailed to Samuel Saint Dic 143 Draper St. Springfield, MA 01108 AND Yves Rose Saint Dic 143 Draper Street Springfield, MA 01108 on 12/10/2019. (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 49 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #44 Motion for Return of Real Estate Property. The court construes Plaintiffs Motion for Return of Real Estate Property as a motion for reconsideration of the courts denials of Plaintiffs requests for injunctive relief. So construed, Plaintiffs motion is denied for the same reasons set forth in the courts prior orders addressing this issue. (See Dkt. Nos. 12, 25, 27, 38, 42.) As the court has explained, Plaintiffs had multiple opportunities to present evidence in support of their injunctive relief requests and did not meet their burden to obtain that relief. Plaintiffs Motion for Return of Real Estate Property does not set forth any sufficient basis to support reconsideration of the courts denials of injunctive relief. (Rivera, Christina) . |
| Filing 48 Opposition re #47 MOTION to Strike filed by Wells Fargo Bank. (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 47 MOTION to Strike The New Defendants Motion to Dismiss by Samuel Saint Dic, Yves Rose Saint Dic. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Certificate of Service)(Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 46 NOTICE of Error Re: FORECLOSURE SALE DISPUTE by Samuel Saint Dic, Yves Rose Saint Dic (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 45 Opposition re #44 MOTION RETURN OF REAL ESTATE PROPERTY filed by Wells Fargo Bank. (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 44 MOTION FOR RETURN OF REAL ESTATE PROPERTY by Samuel Saint Dic. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 43 Copy re 42 Order on Motion to Stop Foreclosure Sale, mailed to Samuel Saint-Dic and Yves R. Saint-Dic on 11/19/19. Also, sent a copy to plaintiff's email address. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 42 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #40 Motion to Stop Foreclosure Sale Coming Up November 19th 2019 and Demand to Settle Lawsuit. The court construes Plaintiffs' motion as both a motion for reconsideration of the court's previous denials of their requests for injunctive relief and a motion for a preliminary injunction. This latest motion is substantially similar and almost exactly the same as Plaintiffs' November 14, 2019 Motion for Permanent Injunction (Dkt. No. 33). Because it contains no new evidence or legal analysis which would justify either reconsideration or a preliminary injunction, the court denies this motion for the same reasons articulated in its November 15, 2019 order (Dkt. No. 38), as well as Dkt. Nos. 12, 25, and 27. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 41 Opposition re #40 MOTION TO STOP FORECLOSURE SALE filed by Wells Fargo Bank. (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 40 MOTION to Stop Foreclosure Sale Coming Up November 19th 2019 and Demand to Settle Lawsuit by Samuel Saint Dic, Yves Rose Saint Dic. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 39 Copy re 38 Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction, 37 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,, Order on Motion for Recusal,, mailed via USPS and emailed to Samuel Saint-Dic and Yves R. Saint-Dic on 11/15/19. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 38 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #31 Motion to Strike all Decisions and #33 Motion for Permanent Injunction. The court construes Plaintiffs' motion to strike as a motion for reconsideration of all prior orders issued by the court. So construed, Plaintiffs' motion is denied because they have set forth no compelling or meritorious reason for such reconsideration. Similarly, the court denies Plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction for the same reasons discussed in Dkt. Nos. 12, 25, and 27. Plaintiff has not presented any persuasive evidence or argument which would justify either a permanent injunction or a preliminary injunction. "A preliminary inunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that is never awarded as of right." Peoples Fed. Savings Bank v. People' United Bank, 671 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2012). Rather, in order to obtain such injunctive relief, a plaintiff must establish, among other things, "that he is likely to succeed on the merits," id. at 9, and Plaintiffs in this case have not done so, despite multiple opportunities. While the court is extremely sympathetic to Plaintiffs' situation, it has a duty to faithfully apply the applicable law, and it has endeavored to give Plaintiffs every reasonable opportunity to present evidence and support their claims in order to meet the governing standards. To the extent Defendant seeks sanctions, that request is denied. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 37 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #30 Motion and Declaration to Change Judge and #32 Motion to Recuse. Plaintiff has not set forth a legitimate basis for recusal. See In re United States, 441 F.3d 44, 67 (1st Cir. 2006) ("The trial judge has a duty not to recuse himself or herself if there is no objective basis for recusal."); Fideicomisco De La Tierra del Cano Martin Pena v. Fortuno, 631 F. Supp. 2d 134, 137 (D.P.R. 2009) "Unfortunately for plaintiff, dissatisfaction with a Court's rulings and case management is not grounds for recusal." (collecting cases)). (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 36 Opposition re #32 MOTION for Recusal filed by Wells Fargo Bank. (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 35 Opposition re #31 MOTION to Strike filed by Wells Fargo Bank. (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 34 Opposition re #33 MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Wells Fargo Bank. (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 33 MOTION for Permanent Injunction and Demand to Stop Foreclosure Sale Coming up on November 19, 2019 and Demand to Settle Lawsuit Before Twenty Days. by Samuel Saint Dic.(Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 32 MOTION to Recuse by Samuel Saint Dic. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 31 MOTION to Strike all Decisions by Samuel Saint Dic. (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 30 MOTION and Declaration to Change Judge by Samuel Saint Dic, Yves Rose Saint Dic.(Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 29 AFFIDAVIT of Plaintiff Samuel Saint Dic by Samuel Saint Dic, Yves Rose Saint Dic. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 28 Copy re 27 Order on Motion for Return of Property, Order on Motion to Dismiss, mailed to Samuel Saint-Dic and Yves R. Saint-Dic on 11/8/19. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 27 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #19 Motion for Return of Property Wrongfully Foreclosed and #20 Motion to Dismiss. The court construes Plaintiffs' Motion for Return of Property Wrongfully Foreclosed (Dkt. No. #20 ) as a motion for injunctive relief and denies this motion for the same reasons explained in the court's October 28, 2019 (Dkt. No. 12 ) and November 8, 2019 (Dkt. No. #25 ) orders addressing the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction request. The court also notes Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any foreclosure sale as to 143 Draper Street has already been conducted.The court construes Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. #20 ) as a motion for reconsideration of the court's October 28, 2019 order denying a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 12 ). Considering the evidence presented at both the October 28, 2019 and November 4, 2019 evidentiary hearings, as well as the motion itself (Dkt. No. #20 ), Plaintiffs have presented no persuasive reasons for the court to reconsider its ruling on the injunctive relief requests. In addition, the court's November 8, 2019 order (Dkt. No. #25 ) renders this motion, which relates to Dkt. No. 12 , moot. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 26 Copy re #25 Order mailed to Samuel Saint-Dic and Yves R. Saint-Dic on 11/8/19. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 25 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. For the reasons stated, the court DENIES Plaintiffs request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. It is So Ordered. See the attached order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 24 MEMORANDUM in Support re #23 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Wells Fargo Bank. (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 23 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Wells Fargo Bank.(Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 22 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/4/2019. Present: Mr. Samuel Saint Dic, pro se plaintiff, Atty Peter Francis Carr for the defendant. Defense calls Witness Lawrence Nardi. Witness placed under oath. Direct examination conducted. Exhibits 1, 2 admitted. Cross exam. Witness excused. Court hears argument, takes matter under advisement. Order to issue. (Court Reporter: Alice Moran at alice.moran@verizon.net.) (Bartlett, Timothy) |
| Filing 21 EXHIBIT re #9 Objection, #16 Emergency MOTION for Disclosure (Defendant's Emergency Motion to Order Plaintiffs to Produce Documents in Advance of Further Evidentiary Hearing) (Subpoena to Rockland Trust and Letter Response from Rockland Trust) by Wells Fargo Bank. (Attachments: #1 Letter Response to Subpoena)(Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 20 MOTION to Dismiss by Samuel Saint Dic. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 19 MOTION for Return of Property Wrongfully Foreclosed by Samuel Saint Dic. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 17 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #16 Defendant's Emergency Motion to Order Plaintiffs to Produce Documents in Advance of Further Evidentiary Hearing. Plaintiffs shall provide Defendant's counsel, by no later than October 31, 2019 at 5:00 p.m., any and all additional document they may seek to rely upon during the evidentiary hearing scheduled for November 4, 2019. Any documents not provided to Defendant's counsel by this time may not be used at the November 4, 2019 hearing. (Healy, Bethaney) |
| Filing 16 Emergency MOTION for Disclosure (Defendant's Emergency Motion to Order Plaintiffs to Produce Documents in Advance of Further Evidentiary Hearing) by Wells Fargo Bank.(Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 15 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing. Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/4/2019 at 9:30 AM in Franklin Courtroom before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. (Healy, Bethaney) |
| Filing 14 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Electronic order granting #11 Motion for Reconsideration of documents not produced at the hearing on October 28, 2019. The court will hold another evidentiary on November 4, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant is therefore ordered to cancel the foreclosure sale currently scheduled for October 29, 2019. (Healy, Bethaney) |
| Filing 13 Copy re 12 Order,,,,,,,,,,, mailed to Samuel Saint Dic 143 Draper St. Springfield, MA 01108 and Yves Rose Saint Dic 143 Draper Street Springfield, MA 01108 on 10/28/2019. (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 12 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Electronic order entered re: Request for Temporary Restraining Order. The court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order contained in their complaint. As the court explained in Dkt. No. 6, Plaintiffs had to satisfy their burden of demonstrating "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld, (3) a favorable balance of hardships, and (4) a fit (or lack of friction) between the injunction and the public interest." Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 2003). The court finds, after the evidentiary hearing held today, that Plaintiffs did not carry their burden of demonstrating a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs' complaint is deficient in that it fails to provide the minimal level of detail required to give Defendant "fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Calvi v. Knox County, 470 F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006). In this regard, the complaint does not set forth any specific claim upon which a likelihood of success could be based.More importantly, for purposes of the injunctive relief requested, Plaintiffs failed to adequately support their allegations with evidence, despite the court's October 21, 2019 order stating that they "should be prepared to present evidence at [the] hearing." (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff Samuel Saint Dic admitted at the hearing that Plaintiffs signed the 2017 Loan Modification Agreement (Dkt. No. 9), which stated the new principal balance was $207,609.17. He did not persuasively explain why they agreed to this amount in the face of the allegation that the principal balance was incorrect. Moreover, when asked to support his allegation that there was a prior mistake in the principal balance, Mr. Saint Dic responded that he would provide the documents at a later time. The court takes judicial notice of the original mortgage, which was attached as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss in 18-cv-11936, in the amount of $149,600 for an adjustable rate; this amount was accurately reflected in the Loan Modification Agreement, which modified the loan to a 3.375% fixed rate. While the court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs' situation, "[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that is never awarded as of right." Peoples Fed. Sav. Bank v. Peoples United Bank, 672 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). After dismissing Plaintiffs' 2018 lawsuit without prejudice, explaining the deficiencies in the original complaint, and explicitly informing Plaintiffs of the need to present evidence at the hearing to carry their burden for obtaining injunctive relief in this case, Plaintiffs were unable to meet that burden. (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 11 MOTION to Vacate Foreclosure Sale and request times to bring more records by Samuel Saint Dic. (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 10 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Evidentiary Hearing held on 10/28/2019. Present: Mr. Samuel Saint Dic, pro seplaintiff, Atty Peter Francis Carr for the defendant. Plaintiff Samuel Saint Dic placed under oath. Plaintiff presents evidence and argument. Defense counsel questions plaintiff, presents argument. Court takes matters under advisement. (Court Reporter: Alice Moran at alice.moran@verizon.net.) (Bartlett, Timothy) |
| Filing 9 Objection to #1 Complaint by Wells Fargo Bank (Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter Francis Carr, II on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 7 Copy re 6 Order, Set Hearings, mailed to Plaintiffs on this day. (Bartlett, Timothy) |
| Filing 6 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: #1 Complaint filed by Yves Rose Saint Dic, Samuel Saint Dic. In Plaintiffs' complaint, they request a temporary restraining order, among other relief, and allege that a foreclosure sale is scheduled for October 29, 2019. Accordingly, the court has scheduled a hearing for October 28, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. on this temporary restraining order request. Plaintiffs, who bear the burden of satisfying the four requirements for injunctive relief: "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld, (3) a favorable balance of hardships, and (4) a fit (or lack of friction) between the injunction and the public interest," Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 2003), should be prepared to present evidence at this hearing. In addition, Plaintiff shall send Defendant a copy of this order. Evidentiary Hearing on Request for TRO set for 10/28/2019 at 10:00 AM in Franklin Courtroom before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. (Bartlett, Timothy) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed Wells Fargo Bank served on 10/18/2019, answer due 11/8/2019. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Wells Fargo Bank. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 3 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 2 Filing fee/payment: $ 400.00, receipt number SPR004184 for #1 Complaint (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Wells Fargo Bank, filed by Samuel Saint Dic, Yves Rose Saint Dic. (Attachments: #1 Complaint - Parts (2 of 2), #2 Cover & Category Sheets)(Lindsay, Maurice) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
