Tremblay v. Bank Of America et al
Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. (PSSA, 5)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
BANK OF AMERCIA, BANK OR NEW YORK
and HUNT LEIBERT JACOBSON, P.C.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-11088-DJC
Plaintiff Elizabeth Tremblay’s (“Tremblay”) motion to proceed in forma pauperis
is ALLOWED. Because Tremblay is proceeding in forma pauperis, her complaint is subject to
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
Tremblay’s action is DISMISSED without prejudice for substantially the same
reasons set forth in the Orders dismissing Tremblay’s prior, duplicative actions concerning her
Connecticut foreclosure proceeding.1 See Tremblay v. Bank of America, 16-10813-FDS, D.7;
Tremblay v. Unknown Banks, 15-10075-GAO, D.6; Tremblay v. Bank of New York, 15-13374GAO, D.6.
Because judgment has entered in the foreclosure case, the claims fail for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
“The Rooker–Feldman doctrine is
properly applied where, regardless of how the claim is phrased, the only real injury to Plaintiffs is
ultimately still caused by a state-court judgment.” DuLaurence v. Telegen, 94 F. Supp. 3d 73, 80
Plaintiff’s claim concerns the foreclosure on her property at 423 Rixtown Road, in Griswold
Connecticut. See Bank of New York v. Tremblay, KNL-CV07-5004785-S (Connecticut Superior
Court). A review of the public docket reveals that judgment originally entered on April 7, 2008.
After two appeals, final judgment entered on May 18, 2016. According to the Griswold
Connecticut Town Clerk’s records, title to the foreclosed property transferred on July 27, 2016. It
is not clear what role, if any, Bank of America had with respect to the foreclosure action. As best
the court can discern Bank of America held plaintiff’s mortgage at some point. Merely holding
the mortgage at some point does not state a plausible claim against Bank of America.
(D. Mass. 2015), aff'd sub nom. Dulaurence v. Telegen et al. (May 5, 2015)(citations and
quotations omitted.). “First Circuit precedent is clear that a claim need not directly assert that it is
attempting to appeal or attack a state court decision in order to fall within the scope of the Rooker–
Feldman doctrine.” Id. “Rather, a plaintiff's claims may be an effort to do an end run around the
state court's judgment.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). Here, Tremblay seeks damages of
$500,000 for “the aggravation…[defendants]…put [her] through” apparently during the
foreclosure action and that she has “never been heard” on unidentified civil rights violations under
the First And Seventh Amendments. When viewed in the context of her prior civil actions in this
Court, Tremblay appears to impermissibly seek damages relating to a foreclosure proceeding
which she claims was somehow procedurally flawed. Any analysis of the defendants’ alleged
conduct or motivations concerning the timing and notice procedural defects in that action
necessarily would require this Court to review impermissibly the validity of the Connecticut
Superior Court’s foreclosure judgment inasmuch as she is essentially alleging harm as a result of
the judgment in that action. See Mains v. Citibank, N.A., 852 F.3d 669, 678 (7th Cir. 2017)(holding
with few exceptions, not applicable here, claims against mortgagee and law firm barred by RookerFeldman); Cavero v. One W. Bank FSB, 617 F. App'x 928, 930 (11th Cir. 2015)(unpublished
decision)(affirming dismissal of claims against mortgagee and law firm under Rooker-Feldman);
but see contra Gabriele v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 503 Fed.Appx. 89 (2nd Cir.
2012)(holding Fair Debt Collections Practices Act claims not barred by Rooker-Feldman).
Furthermore, Tremblay makes no federal claims other than baldly asserting her First Amendment
and Seventh Amendment rights under the Constitution. It is unclear on what basis Tremblay makes
such assertions, but in the context of the allegations in her complaint, there is no plausible basis
for such claims as against these defendants. As to Defendant Hunt Leibert Jacobson P.C., this
claim is dismissed for the additional reasons that Tremblay has not alleged plausible allegations of
harm by this defendant, even, as she seems to suggest that this defendant is also liable for the
foreclosure that has now been adjudicated in Connecticut. To the extent Tremblay believes that
judgment was procured by fraud or otherwise was procedurally erroneous, her recourse is to the
Connecticut appellate courts, which she appears to have done, not a civil action in the United States
District Court in this district.2 Tellingly, Tremblay claims that “Mohegan Sun caused all of
this…,” and although not technically part of the complaint, Tremblay essentially admits that the
property was properly subject to foreclosure for reasons unrelated to the Defendants in her motion
to proceed in forma pauperis where she states: “The reason I lost the house was because Mohegan
Sun fired me illegally to bring a mental case back in my position because they had no openings.”
See complaint, D.1, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, D.2 at 2. While Tremblay appears upset
because alleged circumstances unrelated to the Defendants in this case purportedly set off a chain
of events leading her to apparently default on her mortgage and lose her home, such circumstances
do not lay the groundwork for a cause of action against the Defendants in this action.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Tremblay is ENJOINED from filing any new civil
action in this Court against Bank of New York, Bank of America and Hunt Leibert Jacobson, P.C.
concerning or relating to the foreclosure of her property in Connecticut without first obtaining
leave of Court to do so. Tremblay may seek such written approval by filing a written petition
seeking leave of court to do so. Such petition must be accompanied by a copy of this Order, the
papers sought to be filed and a certification under oath that there is a good-faith basis for their
filing. The Clerk of Court shall accept the documents, mark them received, and forward them to
. Even if the Court had subject matter jurisdiction, the Court questions whether venue is
appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1406(a).
a judicial officer for action on the petition. Any documents which are submitted for filing by the
plaintiff in violation of this Order shall not be filed or docketed by the Clerk's Office, but shall be
returned to plaintiff. To the extent that plaintiff brings, or seeks leave to bring, further actions that
have been previously-decided by this court or are otherwise malicious, frivolous, or abusive, she
may be subject to further sanctions. Plaintiff has been previously warned about filing malicious,
frivolous or abusive actions, see Tremblay v. Bank of America, 16-10813-FDS, D.7, and the Court
notes that she may be subject to sanctions, including monetary sanctions, if she continues to file
claims that are malicious, frivolous, or abusive.
September 27, 2017__________________ /s/ Denise J. Casper_______________
Denise J. Casper
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
Why Is My Information Online?