Saint Dic v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
| Samuel Saint Dic |
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., |
| 3:2021cv11140 |
| July 12, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Mark G Mastroianni |
| Katherine A Robertson |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 7, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 Copy re #18 Order Dismissing Case, 16 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 17 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, mailed to Plaintiff on 9/7/2021. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 18 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 17 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Electronic order entered granting #9 Motion to Dismiss. As Defendant argues, Plaintiff's claims are barred by claim preclusion, which is a form of res judicata. Plaintiff originally brought an action, based on the same underlying allegations, in 2018. (See 18-cv-11936.) The court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice on September 9, 2019, for failing to allege adequate facts to state a plausible claim for relief. (See id., Dkt. No. 37.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a second action, again based on the same underlying allegations. After holding an evidentiary hearing and denying Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, the court dismissed Plaintiff's second action with prejudice for failing to allege adequate facts and because Plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. (See 19-cv-30137, Dkt. No. 51.) Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his second action, and on October 30, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this court's dismissal order. (See id., Dkt. Nos. 61 and 62.) Because Plaintiff's second action was dismissed with prejudice, he cannot bring a new complaint based on the same allegations. See Airframe Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 601 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 2010) ("Claim preclusion applies if (1) the earlier suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits, (2) the causes of action in the earlier and later suits are sufficiently identical or related, and (3) the parties in the two suits are sufficiently identical or closely related."); see also id. ("Federal claim preclusion law bars parties from relitigating claims that could have been made in an earlier suit, not just claims that were actually made.") In addition, Plaintiff's latest complaint once again fails to allege adequate facts to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Lastly, Plaintiff's claims, which are based on events that occurred in 2010 to 2012, are also barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff's complaint is therefore dismissed with prejudice. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 16 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Electronic order entered denying #11 and #13 Motions to Transfer. Plaintiff requests a transfer of this action from the Western Division to the Central Division, based on the allegation that the undersigned is racially biased. Plaintiff's allegation of racial bias is entirely unfounded and does not support his request for recusal or transfer to another division. The court notes that the ruling on the merits of the 2019 case handled by this court was affirmed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. As to venue, under Local Rule 40.1, this action is appropriately assigned to the Western Division because the property at issue (where Plaintiff resides) is located in Springfield. See Local Rule 40.1(d)(1)(C). Moreover, Plaintiff has provided no good cause to transfer this case to another division. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 15 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Electronic order entered granting #8 Motion to Amend Caption, as unopposed. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 14 Opposition re #13 MOTION Removal to U.S. District Court of Worcester (Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Second Motion and Notice of Removal of Civil Action) filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,. (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Removal to U.S. District Court of Worcester by Samuel Saint Dic. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 12 Opposition re #11 MOTION of Removal of Civil Action filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,. (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 11 MOTION of Removal of Civil Action by Samuel Saint Dic.(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 10 MEMORANDUM in Support re #9 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,. (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 9 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,.(Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Amend Caption by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,.(Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 7 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case RE-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. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 6 Refusal to Consent to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge. . (Carr, Peter) |
| Filing 5 Remark: A Certified copy of the Notice of Removal has been emailed today to Defendants Counsel for service on the State Court in order to obtain the certified State Court record. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded #here. These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Danieli, Chris) |
| Filing 3 Case transferred in from Eastern Division (Boston) on 7/12/2021 Case Number 1:21-cv-11140. (Danieli, Chris) |
| Filing 2 Case transferred to Western Division (Springfield) (de Oliveira, Flaviana) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Park Place Securities, Inc. Asset- Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-WCW2 ( Filing fee: $ 402, receipt number 0101-8855321 Fee Status: Filing Fee paid) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Local Category Form)(Carr, Peter) |
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
| Search for this case: Saint Dic v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Samuel Saint Dic | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., | |
| Represented By: | Peter Francis Carr, II |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
