HANDLEY v. CHASE BANK USA, NA et al
Filing
22
OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 9/12/11. (DD, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
PATRICIA A. HANDLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHASE BANK USA, NA and
REED SMITH LLP,
Defendants.
PATRICIA A. HANDLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIBANK(SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.
and CHASE BANK USA, N.A.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 11-2904 (SRC)
OPINION
Civil Action No. 11-2906 (SRC)
CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court on four motions to dismiss these two Complaints for
failure to state a valid claim for relief, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), in
these related actions: 1) two motions in Civil Action No. 11-2904 filed by Defendants Chase
Bank USA, NA and Reed Smith LLP (collectively, the “2904 Defendants”); and 2) two motions
in Civil Action No. 11-2906 filed by Defendants Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. and Chase Bank
USA, N.A. (collectively, the “2906 Defendants”). Plaintiff has not opposed these motions. For
the reasons that follow, the motions to dismiss will be granted.
In brief, all Defendants move to dismiss the two Complaints on the basis of res judicata.
The Complaints in these two cases expressly state that these suits seek to litigate cases that were
previously filed, litigated, and concluded.
The Complaint in Civil Action No. 11-2906 states that, on August 4, 2005, Plaintiff filed
suit against the 2906 Defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey, and the case was removed
to this Court. The Complaint further asserts that the August 2005 Complaint alleged facts
relating to credit card loan transactions in 2002, 2003, and 2004 between Plaintiff and
Defendants, and that Plaintiff was troubled by harassing collection efforts in 2004 and 2005. The
August 2005 Complaint asserts two claims: 1) Defendants made deceptive disclosures to induce
Plaintiff to agree to the loans; and 2) Defendants knowingly used debt collection agencies which
violated the FDCPA and intentionally inflicted emotional abuse on Plaintiff. The Complaint in
Civil Action No. 11-2906 asserts these same two claims. The claims asserted in the August 2005
Complaint and the claims asserted in the Complaint in Civil Action No. 11-2906 are virtually
identical.
The Complaint in Civil Action No. 11-2904 states: “This suit was filed in U.S. District
Court on May 8, 2009.” (Compl. at 1.) The Complaint acknowledges at the outset, then, that
this action was previously filed in this Court. Aside from certain prefatory material, the May
2009 Complaint and the Complaint in Civil Action No. 11-2904 are virtually identical. There is
no material difference between the claims asserted in the May 2009 Complaint and the claims
asserted in the Complaint in Civil Action No. 11-2904.
2
Furthermore, the Complaints in both Civil Action Nos. 11-2904 and 11-2906 state that
both previously-filed cases ended in judgments, which were appealed to the Third Circuit, that
the Third Circuit upheld those judgments, and that the Supreme Court has denied petitions for
certiorari in both cases.
Under Third Circuit law:
A party seeking to invoke res judicata must establish three elements: (1) a final
judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their
privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.
Duhaney v. AG of the United States, 621 F.3d 340, 347 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has stated:
A complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations,
taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. If the allegations, for
example, show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the
complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim . . . Whether a
particular ground for opposing a claim may be the basis for dismissal for failure to
state a claim depends on whether the allegations in the complaint suffice to
establish that ground . . .
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
It is apparent from the face of the two Complaints that the allegations in those Complaints
suffice to establish every element of the affirmative defense of res judicata. Both Complaints
allege a final judgment on the merits in prior suits involving the same parties and the same
causes of action.
The Complaints in both Civil Action Nos. 11-2904 and 11-2906 fail to state a claim
because the allegations, taken as true, show that relief is barred by the affirmative defense of res
3
judicata. The motions to dismiss will be granted, and the Complaints will be dismissed with
prejudice.
/s Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
Dated: September 12, 2011
4
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?