COPELAND v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, ORDER Administratively terminating this case, etc. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/4/2019. (rss, n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARCIA COPELAND, M.D.,
1:18-cv-10554-NLH-JS
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JUDGE
NAN FAMULAR, ROBERT SALDUTTI,
ESQ., DEUTCHE BANK,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
MARCIA COPELAND, M.D.
2 APPLE RIDGE WAY
EAST BRUNSWICK, NJ 08816
Plaintiff appearing pro se
BRETT JOSEPH HAROLDSON
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NJ
25 MARKET ST, 7TH FL, WEST WING
PO BOX 116
TRENTON, NJ 08625
On behalf of Defendants the State of New Jersey and Judge
Nan Famular
REBECCA K. MCDOWELL
SALDUTTI LAW GROUP
800 N KINGS HIGHWAY
SUITE 300
CHERRY HILL, NJ 08034
On behalf of Defendant Robert Saldutti, Esquire
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2019, the Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and ordered Plaintiff to

show cause as to why this Court should not enter a preclusion
order and enjoin Plaintiff from filing any claims in this
District regarding the subject matter of this case without prior
permission of the Court (Docket No. 10, 11); and
WHEREAS, the Court provided Plaintiff with 15 days to
respond to the Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 11); and
WHEREAS, to date, Plaintiff has not filed a response; and
WHEREAS, the Court noted in its prior Opinion that this is
the sixth essentially duplicate federal court action filed by
Plaintiff concerning a state court default judgment entered
against her in February 2012, and Plaintiff has also instituted
three additional complaints in this District of a similar genre 1;
and
WHEREAS, the Court further notes that the Court issued the
same litigation preclusion Order to Show Cause in COPELAND v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 1:17-cv-12104-NLH-JS (“Copeland V”) (Docket
No. 95, at 15), to which Plaintiff also failed to respond; and

1

Plaintiff’s previous actions concerning the same default
judgment are: COPELAND v. ABO & COMPANY, LLC, 1:13-cv-03978-RMBKMW (“Copeland I”); 1:13-cv-03979-RMB-KMW (“Copeland II”); 1:13cv-04232-RMB-AMD (“Copeland III”); COPELAND v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 3:15-cv-07431-AET-TJB (“Copeland IV”);
COPELAND v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 1:17-cv-12104-NLH-JS (“Copeland
V”). Plaintiff has filed other actions arising out of different
properties, although Plaintiff’s claims appear to be of a
similar genre. See COPELAND v. TOWNSHIP OF PENNSAUKEN, 1:14-cv02002-RMB-AMD; COPELAND v. NEWFIELD BANK, 1:17-cv-00017-NLH-KMW;
COPELAND v. US BANK, 1:18-cv-00019-NLH-KMW.
2

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s related cases, Copeland V and Copeland
V. US Bank, 1:18-cv-00019-NLH-KMW, are currently on appeal
before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals 2; and
WHEREAS, the Court therefore finds that because the
substance of Plaintiff’s claims in the actions on appeal overlap
with this case, including the Court’s intention to issue a
litigation preclusion order, the Court shall administratively
terminate this action pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s
appeals, at which time the Court will reactivate the matter and
issue a final decision on the outstanding Order to Show Cause. 3
SO ORDERED.

Date: June 4, 2019
At Camden, New Jersey

2

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiff has not filed an appeal of this action.

3

When the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s instant complaint with
prejudice, the Court did not direct the Clerk to close the
action because of the pending Order to Show Cause.
3