Belanger et al v. BNY Mellon Asset Management LLC et al

Filing 86

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered granting 42 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 49 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 53 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 55 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 66 Motion to Dismiss; granting [ 67] Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 70 Motion to Strike ; denying as moot 76 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 80 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 81 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 82 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 84 Motion to Dismiss; granting 7 Motion to Dismiss (Folan, Karen)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
LISA SIEGEL BELANGER and
DEVORA C. KAISER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BNY MELLON ASSET MANAGEMENT,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 15-cv-10198-ADB

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
April 2, 2015
BURROUGHS, D.J.
Plaintiffs Lisa Siegel Belanger and Devora C. Kaiser (“plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint
in this action on February 12, 2015 [Docket No. 1]. The Complaint is 462 pages long and
contains 2767 numbered paragraphs. Plaintiffs attached 393 separate exhibits to their Complaint,
which were filed with the Court and served on the defendants via multiple CD-ROMs [Docket
No. 4]. The Complaint names forty defendants, including individual attorneys, law firms, and
other private companies, several doctors and hospitals, an elder services organization, and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
At this juncture, the Court will not attempt to ascertain or recite the full extent of the
Complaint’s factual allegations and legal claims for relief. Suffice it to say that plaintiffs, the two
daughters of Marvin H. Siegel, appear to be dissatisfied with proceedings in the Massachusetts
Probate Court involving their 86-year-old father. See [Docket No. 1, ¶¶ 8, 21, 43]; see generally
Belanger v. Cuffe, 464 Mass. 1016 (2013). The Complaint alleges a vast conspiracy and
criminal enterprise allegedly perpetrated by the Massachusetts Probate & Family Courts, along
with other alleged wrongdoings by the courts and the other defendants. Plaintiffs set forth 28

separate counts for relief, including but not limited to civil RICO claims, claims for fraud,
misrepresentation, embezzlement, violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985, abuse of process,
and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief, including
the invalidation of various Massachusetts state statutes on federal Constitutional grounds.
Presently before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by (1) Thomas Barbar, James
Feld, Robert Ledoux, and Cheri Myette [Docket No. 7] 1; (2) BNY Mellon Asset Management,
LLC [Docket No. 42]; and (3) Maxa Berid and Berid & Schutzbank, LLC [Docket No. 67].
These defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b), citing plaintiffs’ failure to comply with various Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (“FRCP”), including FRCP 8 (“General Rules of Pleading”), FRCP 10 (“Form of
Pleading”) and FRCP 11 (“Signing Pleadings”). Most significantly, defendants argue that the
Complaint fails to satisfy FRCP 8(a), which requires pleadings to contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and FRCP 8(d), which
requires each allegation to be “simple, concise, and direct.” Plaintiffs filed a Joint Opposition to
these motions to dismiss on March 25, 2015 [Docket No. 69]. 2 After reviewing defendants’

1

Defendant Brian Cuffe had previously joined with these defendants in the Motion to Dismiss, but he has
since withdrawn from the motion [Docket No. 73] and filed a separate Motion to Strike [Docket No. 70].
2

The Court recognizes that other defendants have also filed motions to dismiss, including the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts [Docket No. 49], Walter Costello, Jr., Marsha Kazarosian, and
Kazarosian Costello, O’Donnell LLP [Docket No. 53]; Peter W. Cohen [Docket No. 55]; Scott Dailey,
Elder Services of Merrimack Valley Inc., Diane Powell, and Michael Springman [Docket No. 66]; Burns
& Levinson, LLP, Laura R. Studen, and Lisa M. Cukier [Docket No. 76]; Pierce & Mandell PC [Docket
No. 80]; Robert Portney [Docket No. 81]; Kenney Enterprises and Brenda Wojick [Docket No. 82] and
Beverly Hospital [Docket No. 84]. The Court will not specifically rule on these motions, or Mr. Cuffe’s
Motion to Strike [Docket No. 70], as plaintiffs’ responses have not been filed. However, the Court’s
Order dismissing plaintiffs’ Complaint and requiring plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint is
applicable to these motions as well. These motions will be denied as moot, but, if warranted, Defendants
may renew their motions to dismiss and/or motions to strike after plaintiffs file an Amended Complaint.

2

motions and memoranda, and plaintiffs’ Joint Opposition, the defendants’ motions to dismiss
plaintiffs’ Complaint are allowed. 3
FRCP 8(a)(2) requires that any pleading stating a claim for relief “must contain a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FRCP 8(d),
captioned “Pleading to Be Concise and Direct,” further provides that “each allegation must be
simple, concise, and direct.” The purpose of a clear and succinct pleading is to give a defendant
fair notice of the claim and its basis as well as to provide an opportunity for a cogent answer and
defense. See Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm., LLC, 521 F.3d 76, 84 (1st Cir. 2008). “The statement
of the claim should be short because ‘unnecessary length places an unjustified burden on the
court and on the party who must respond to it.’” Greg Beeche Logistics, LLC v. Skanska USA
Bldg., Inc., C.A. No. 12-11121, 2014 WL 4656503 (D. Mass. Aug. 5, 2014) (citation omitted)
(adopting Report & Recommendation); see also 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 1281, 709 (3d ed.) (“Unnecessary prolixity in a pleading places
an unjustified burden on the district judge and the party who must respond to it because they are
forced to ferret out the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.”).
“A district court has the power to dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 8(a)(2)’s ‘short and plain statement’
requirement.” Kuehl v. F.D.I.C., 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993). “‘Dismissal [for noncompliance
with Rule 8] is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused,
ambiguous, vague or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised,’”
such that it would be “unreasonable to expect defendants to frame a response to it.” Sayied v.

3

Plaintiffs, as well as defendants Feld, Ledoux, Myette, Barbar, Maxa Berid, Berid & Schutzbank, LLC,
and Beverly Hospital, have requested oral argument on these motions to dismiss. The Court has
determined that oral argument is not necessary or helpful to resolving these motions, and therefore the
parties’ requests for oral argument are denied.

3

White, 89 Fed. App’x 284 (1st Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Salahuddin v. Cuomo,
861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988)); see also Jackson v. Polaroid Corp., 181 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 1999)
(affirming dismissal of “long and redundant” 350-paragraph complaint for noncompliance with
FRCP 8); Youngworth v. Gentile, No. C.A. 05-30108, 2006 WL 516757 (D. Mass. Feb. 27,
2006) (dismissing complaint containing “hundreds of assertions” and presented in “a rambling,
discursive essay form,” without prejudice to filing an amended pleading in compliance with the
Federal Rules).
Here, plaintiffs’ 462-page Complaint, along with its 393 Exhibits, is a far cry from “short
and plain” and “simple, concise and direct.” The Complaint is replete with rambling, incoherent
allegations, inappropriate legal argument, and swaths of irrelevant background material and
exhibits. It is way too long, detailed and verbose for either the Court or the defendants to sort
out the nature of the claims or evaluate whether the claims are actually supported by any
comprehensible factual basis. Plaintiffs argue that the length of their Complaint is “entirely
appropriate and reasonable given the number of claims made by plaintiffs,” and by the “amount
of incontrovertible evidence that Plaintiffs have amassed in this case . . . .” [Docket No. 69, p.
13, ¶55]. The Court disagrees. A pleading is not an appropriate vehicle for aggregating masses
of evidence or advancing premature legal arguments. This would undermine the requirement that
a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim,” and that the allegations be “simple,
concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 8(d).
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint
[Docket Nos. 7, 42, and 67] are ALLOWED, and plaintiffs’ Complaint is hereby DISMISSED,
without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file an Amended Complaint that complies with all pleading

4

standards of FRCP 8, 9, 10 4, and 11 within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. The
other pending motions to dismiss or strike [Docket Nos. 49, 53, 55, 66, 70, 76, 80, 81, 82 and 84]
are DENIED as MOOT with leave to renew following the filing of an Amended Complaint.
When drafting their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs are strongly advised to (1) reduce or
eliminate their reliance on exhibits attached to their pleading; (2) excise legal arguments from
their pleading; and (3) significantly condense the factual allegations supporting their claims for
relief. Plaintiffs are reminded that the First Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of complaints far
more succinct than the 462-page, 2767-paragraph manifesto presently before the Court. See
Jackson v. Polaroid, 181 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 1999) (finding no abuse of discretion where district
court dismissed 180-page complaint with over 350 paragraphs and 80 plus counts); Kuehl v.
F.D.I.C., 8 F.3d 905, 907-909 (1st Cir. 1993) (finding no abuse of discretion where district court
dismissed 43-page, 358-paragraph amended complaint with prejudice, for failure to comply with
Rule 8 and district court’s order). The Court further notes that Ms. Belanger, who is representing
both herself and Ms. Kaiser in this action, is an attorney admitted to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and before this Court. Thus, when reviewing plaintiffs’
Amended complaint, the Court will not apply the more lenient standards usually afforded to pro
se litigants. If plaintiffs file an Amended Complaint that fails to comply with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, particularly FRCP 8(a) and 8(d), the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint may be
dismissed pursuant to FRCP 41(b), with prejudice, without further leave to re-plead.

4

The Court notes that, as currently drafted, plaintiffs’ Complaint also fails to comply with FRCP 10(a)
(requiring a caption in the title of the complaint naming all parties to the action). This requirement is not a
mere procedural nicety. A complaint’s caption “protect[s] the public’s legitimate interest in knowing
which disputes involving which parties are before the federal courts . . . .” Doe v. Indiana Black Expo,
Inc., 923 F. Supp. 137, 139 (S.D. Ind. 1996). Here, plaintiffs have attached a caption containing the
parties’ names as an exhibit to their Complaint [Docket No. 1-1], which does not satisfy Rule 10(a) or
achieve its intended purpose.

5

SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2015
/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
DISTRICT JUDGE

6