Batavitchene v. Rubin

Filing 13

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered granting 9 Motion to Dismiss and denying 12 Motion for ECF Access (Danieli, Chris)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Androne Batavitchene,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jeffrey B. Rubin,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 16-10383-LTS

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. NO. 12)
March 31, 2016
SOROKIN, J.
On April 16, 2013, Judge O’Toole dismissed Plaintiff Batavitchene’s claims against, inter
alia, Jeffrey Rubin, which arose out of Rubin’s defense of Batavichene in a criminal case in
Quincy District Court. 1:13-cv-10729, Doc. No. 7. Now, Batavitchene again sues Rubin
asserting various claims arising out of the same set of facts. Doc. No. 1. Rubin has filed a
Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 9, asserting, on what amounts to claim preclusion grounds, that the
Court’s prior decision both revolved the very claims Batavichene advances. Batavitchene’s
opposition, Doc. No. 11, asserts various alleged technical deficiencies with Rubin’s motion,
chiefly that he has failed to file an Answer pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED. Judge O’Toole’s decision plainly both resolved
and bars the claims Batavichene advances. The arguments Batavichene puts forth in support of
her opposition are irrelevant; Rubin has no obligation to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when he has moved to dismiss. Finally, the Court cautions Batavichene that future

meritless filings may result in sanctions or prohibitions on filings with the Court absent prior
judicial permission. See Batavichene v. Clarke, C.A. No. 10-11854-DJC, Doc. No. 19 at 5-6.
Plaintiff’s Motion for ECF Access, Doc. No. 12, is DENIED. The Clerk shall close this
case.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

2