Samulak v. Carington Mortgage Services, LLC
2:16-cv-11229
E.D. Mich.Sep 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Lee Samulak sued to stop foreclosure of his deceased parents' home, alleging RICO, Dodd-Frank, and a Michigan court-rule claim.
- Defendants Carington Mortgage Services, LLC and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
- The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion and dismissing the complaint with prejudice; Plaintiff filed objections.
- The district court conducted de novo review of the objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s Report, and overruled all objections.
- The court held Plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata because a federal bankruptcy court previously dismissed an adversary complaint challenging the same note, mortgage, and foreclosure "in its entirety and with prejudice."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the suit | The earlier proceedings did not fully adjudicate all claims and issues | The bankruptcy-court dismissal was a final merits decision covering the same transaction and parties/privity | Res judicata applies; claims barred |
| Existence of a final decision on the merits | Dismissal was procedural/technical and not on the merits | Bankruptcy court issued a final order dismissing the complaint with prejudice after oral argument | Court found the bankruptcy order was a final merits decision |
| Parties/privity between actions | Plaintiff disputed application to all defendants | Carington was a party to the adversary proceeding; MERS is in privity as nominee | Court found same parties/privity exist |
| Whether issues were actually litigated / identity of claims | Plaintiff pointed to allegedly new evidence and distinct claims | Defendants argued the adversary complaint raised the same claims about the same property, note, mortgage, and foreclosure | Court held issues were actually litigated and claims are identical; res judicata bars relitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (procedural rule on district-court review of magistrate reports)
- Walker v. Gen. Tel. Co., [citation="25 F. App'x 332"] (res judicata elements and effect)
- Sanders Confectionery Prod., Inc. v. Heller Fin., Inc., 973 F.2d 474 (res judicata standards)
- Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565 (preclusive effect of bankruptcy-court judgments)
- United States v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307 (identity-of-claims — focus on factual overlap)