VanPortfliet v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al
Filing
89
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 87 ; Defendant's motions to dismiss 6 , 10 , 39 , 52 , 73 , 76 are GRANTED; Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings 82 is GRANTED; Defendant's motion to dismiss and for default judgment and injunction 46 is GRANTED and Wells Fargo's request to quiet title is GRANTED, the various recordings described therein are NULLIFIED and DISCHARGED, and Plaintiff (or anyone acting on his behalf) is PRO HIBITED from recording with the Kent County Register of Deeds any further instruments or documents concerning the property in question and further PROHIBITED from initiating in this Court any legal proceeding concerning the property in question unles s Plaintiff first obtains leave of Court; Defendants' Bill of Costs, if any, shall be submitted to the Court within 14 days of entry of this Order; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff; this document appears in the following associated cases: 1:13-cv-01197-JTN-ESC, 1:14-cv-00332-JTN-ESC(Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PAUL JAY VAN PORTFLIET,
Plaintiff,
v
Case No. 1:13-cv-1197
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,
et al.,
HON. JANET T. NEFF
Defendants.
_______________________________
WELLS FARGO BANK,
Counter-Claimant,
v
PAUL JAY VAN PORTFLIET,
Counter-Defendant.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action in November 2013, alleging various
claims against Defendants based on the foreclosure and repossession of certain real estate. In March
2014, Plaintiff also initiated in state court an action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., seeking to
overturn the judgment evicting him from the property in question. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. removed the eviction action to this Court, No. 1:14-cv-332, where it was consolidated with the
lead action. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for handling of all matters under 28
U.S.C. § 636(a) and § 636(b)(1)(A) and for submission of recommendations on dispositive motions
under § 636(b)(1)(B). In the lead action, all Defendants move to dismiss the claims asserted on the
ground that the allegations fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and several
Defendants also move to recover their fees and costs. Further, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank moves
for entry of default judgment on its counterclaim and a permanent injunction against Plaintiff. In
the companion action, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moves for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff did
not respond to any of the motions. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R), recommending that Defendants’ motions all be granted and both actions terminated (Dkt
87).
The matter is presently before the Court on Wells Fargo Bank’s objection to the Report and
Recommendation, challenging the scope of the injunction the Magistrate Judge recommends (Dkt
88). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed
de novo consideration of the portion of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been
made. For the following reasons, the Court denies Wells Fargo Bank’s objection and approves and
adopts the Report and Recommendation.
I
Wells Fargo Bank initially requested, in pertinent part, an injunction preventing Plaintiff
from filing “any further actions of any kinds in the federal courts” (Dkt 46). Subsequently, Wells
Fargo Bank represented that Plaintiff had since filed a petition in state court to attack the judgment
in the eviction action, and Wells Fargo Bank supplemented its motion for an injunction to request
that the scope of the injunction also include any future filings in state courts (Dkt 78).
The Magistrate Judge opined that the requests by Wells Fargo Bank were “a bit broad”
(R&R, Dkt 87 at 12). The Magistrate Judge recommends, in pertinent part, an injunction prohibiting
2
Plaintiff from “initiating in this Court any legal proceeding concerning the property in question
unless Plaintiff first obtains leave of Court, to be granted only upon a showing that the proposed
filing or recording has a reasonable basis in fact and law” (id.). The Magistrate Judge, who noted
that Plaintiff has a “demonstrated history of filing frivolous legal actions and engaging in
obfuscatory and abusive litigation tactics,” determined that “Wells Fargo certainly has an interest
in preventing Plaintiff from submitting frivolous matters to the Register of Deeds or initiating
unfounded legal actions in this Court;” however, the Magistrate Judge determined that its interest
extended only to activity that “impacts Wells Fargo’s legitimate interests” (id. at 9).
In its objection, Wells Fargo Bank argues that the injunction should include (1) “proposed
filings in all federal courts,” (2) “any proposed filings in state court,” and (3) “filings against Wells
Fargo and any of its agents” (Objs., Dkt 88 at 3-5). Further, Wells Fargo Bank argues that the
injunction should require Plaintiff to attach to any proposed filing (a) a copy of the injunction, (b)
a list of litigation history, (c) the proposed complaint, and (d) a memorandum explaining why
Plaintiff believes the proposed complaint is reasonable in both fact and law (id. at 5). Wells Fargo
Bank argues that given Plaintiff’s propensity for filing action after action based on the same
fundamental facts, the injunction the Magistrate Judge recommends will have little effect if these
“loopholes” are not closed (id. at 4).
II
“A district court has the authority to issue an injunctive order to prevent prolific litigants
from filing pleadings without first obtaining court approval to do so.” Marbly v. Kay, No. 00-1530,
238 F.3d 422, at *1 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th
Cir. 1998); Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987)). However, courts must use “the
3
least restrictive sanction necessary to deter the inappropriate behavior.” Hyland v. Stevens, 37 F.
App’x 770, 771 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 280 (1990)). “In
most cases, the preferred approach is to require an abusive litigant to obtain leave of court before
filing suit regarding the operative facts that have been the basis for his or her litigiousness.” Id.
The Court has fully considered Wells Fargo Bank’s requests and is persuaded that the
Magistrate Judge’s recommended injunction is reasonably tailored to the competing interests in this
case. First, as to expanding the scope of the injunction to all federal and state courts, the Court is
persuaded that, at this point in time, limiting the injunction to legal proceedings initiated in this
Court is the least restrictive sanction necessary to deter the inappropriate behavior.
As to whether the injunction should be expanded to include “any proposed filings against
Wells Fargo Bank and any of its agents,” the Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the
proper exercise of discretion at this time requires only a screening mechanism for future legal
proceedings concerning the facts that have been the basis for Plaintiff’s litigiousness, i.e., the
property in question. The Magistrate Judge’s recommended injunction properly balances Wells
Fargo Bank’s interest in avoiding duplicative and vexatious litigation with Plaintiff’s right of access
to the courts.
Last, the Court determines that it is not necessary for the injunction to require Plaintiff to
attach the four documents delineated by Wells Fargo Bank.
The Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to require Plaintiff to obtain leave of Court before initiating a future legal
proceeding, and “only upon a showing that the proposed filing or recording has a reasonable basis
in fact and law,” adequately facilitates this Court’s prefiling review.
4
III
Therefore, the Court denies Wells Fargo Bank’s objection to the Report and
Recommendation and approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of the
Court. Because this Opinion and Order resolves the last pending claim in these cases, the Court will
also enter a Judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objection (Dkt 88) is DENIED, and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 87) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 6) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 10) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 39) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 52) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 73) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 76) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt
82) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and for Default
Judgment and Injunction (Dkt 46) is GRANTED, and Defendant Wells Fargo is afforded the relief
as described in the Report and Recommendation; specifically, that: (1) Wells Fargo’s request to
quiet title is GRANTED; (2) the various recordings described therein are NULLIFIED and
DISCHARGED; and (3) Plaintiff (or anyone acting on his behalf) is PROHIBITED from recording
with the Kent County Register of Deeds any further instruments or documents concerning the
property in question and further PROHIBITED from initiating in this Court any legal proceeding
5
concerning the property in question unless Plaintiff first obtains leave of Court, to be granted only
upon a showing that the proposed filing or recording has a reasonable basis in fact and law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Bill of Costs, if any, shall be submitted to
the Court within 14 days of entry of this Order.
Date: September __, 2014
17
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
6
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?