Laccinole v. Assad

Filing 22

ORDER denying without prejudice 7 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 12 Motion to Amend Complaint. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 3/7/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Judy B. Assad,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
CHRISTOPHER LACCINOLE,

C.A. No. 14-447 S

ORDER
Plaintiff,

Christopher

Laccinole

(“Laccinole”),

has

brought three suits relating to attempts to collect the same
debt — moneys he allegedly owes to The Village Lower School,
Inc.

(“The Village Lower School”).

In the first suit, C.A.

No. 14-404 S, Plaintiff names Judy B. Assad (“Assad”), James
D. Sylvester (“Sylvester”), and The Village Lower School as
defendants.
C.A.

No.

defendant.

In the other two matters, C.A. No. 14-447 S and

14-508

S,

Laccinole

names

Assad

as

the

sole

This Court consolidated these actions for more

efficient case management.

(ECF Nos. 37 (14-404), 18 (14-

447), and 13 (14-508).)
Currently

before

the

Court

are

Assad’s

Motion

for

Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 7) (“Assad’s Motion”) and
Laccinole’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 12)
(“Laccinole’s Motion”) in C.A. No. 14-447 S.

Assad’s Motion

relies entirely on the Memorandum of Law she filed in support
of her Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the related
action, C.A. No. 14-404.

There, Laccinole alleges that Assad

violated a number of statutes, including the FDCPA, when she
served and filed a collection action against Laccinole in
state court.

The present action involves the same debt, but

it implicates a different collection action – Assad’s use of
pre-suit demand letters to collect the debt.

These letters

implicate different statutory provisions and prohibitions in
the FDCPA and a different body of case law.

Accordingly, the

arguments Assad made in support of her Motion in C.A. 14-404
do not show that Laccinole also failed to state a claim in
the

present

action,

warranting

denial

of

Assad’s

motion

without prejudice.
Before

granting

Laccinole

leave

to

file

an

amended

complaint, however, the Court reminds Laccinole that he is
still subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
Court

has

discretion

to

impose

Under this rule, the

sanctions

even

on

an

unrepresented party if he or she submits a pleading that is
frivolous or brought for an improper purpose.

Fed. R. Civ.

P. 11(b)-(c); see Flemon v. Massachusetts Atty. Gen., Civil
Action Nos. 13-11518-RWZ, 13-11523-RWZ, 2013 WL 3732880, at
*5 (D. Mass. July 12, 2013).

Further, the Court has inherent

2

power to control the conduct of litigants who appear before
it and to sanction bad-faith or vexatious behavior.
Here,
claims

in

as

noted

C.A.

in

the

14-404,

Order

Laccinole

dismissing
has

Id.

Laccinole’s

brought

fourteen

lawsuits relating to debts he allegedly owes. (See Memorandum
and Order 27 n.6, ECF No. 40, C.A. No. 14-404.)

While the

majority of these cases have settled prior to defendants
filing an answer, the two that courts have considered on the
merits have been dismissed.

See id.; Laccinole v. Twin Oaks

Software Dev., Inc., No. CA 13-716 ML, 2014 WL 2440400, at *7
(D.R.I. May 30, 2014). Indeed, in one, Laccinole was reminded
that the FDCPA does not exist to enable him to “bring serial
lawsuits against different debt collector defendants alleging
various and often insignificant – in this case nonexistent –
deviations from the [FDCPA’s] requirements.”

Twin Oaks, 2014

WL 2440400 at *12.
Based on Laccinole’s history with this Court, Laccinole
is WARNED that amending his complaint to bring a frivolous or
meritless lawsuit may warrant the imposition of sanctions
including fines, an order to pay the legal fees incurred by
defendant in defending the suit, and an injunction enjoining
him from filing further lawsuits absent prior permission of
a judge to file.

3

With this warning, Assad’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings

(ECF

No.

7)

is

DENIED

WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

Laccinole’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.
If he so chooses, and subject to the requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11, Laccinole may file an amended complaint within
ten days (10) of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: March 7, 2016

4