Wolffing v. Household Finance Corporation II
1:12-cv-00280
D. Vt.Aug 21, 2013Background
- Bruce A. and Mary R. Wolffing filed suit in federal court challenging foreclosure-related matters after litigating the same dispute in Vermont state court and bankruptcy court.
- The Plaintiffs filed multiple federal actions (three district actions, a bankruptcy proceeding, and a bankruptcy appeal) arising from the Hinesburg, VT foreclosure; several were dismissed by the Court or bankruptcy court.
- Plaintiffs did not respond to the Court's request for opposition after the Court indicated Rooker–Feldman and res judicata (issue preclusion) barred their claims, and the Court dismissed the Complaint with prejudice.
- The HSBC Defendants moved for a pre-filing injunction to require the Plaintiffs to obtain leave before filing future suits, citing repetitive and vexatious litigation.
- The Court evaluated the Safir factors for imposing a filing injunction (history of litigation, motive, representation, burden/cost, and adequacy of other sanctions).
- The Court denied the injunction, concluding that warnings and the record (no filings for months, dismissal for lack of prosecution) made a pre-filing order unnecessary but granted leave to renew if frivolous filings resume.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Complaint should survive despite prior state/bankruptcy rulings | Plaintiffs sought federal relief challenging foreclosure outcomes (implicitly seeking review or relief) | Defendants argued claims barred by Rooker–Feldman and res judicata/issue preclusion | Court dismissed Complaint with prejudice as barred by Rooker–Feldman and issue preclusion |
| Whether a pre-filing injunction is warranted | Plaintiffs did not advance a substantive response; proceeded pro se | Defendants argued Plaintiffs' repetitive suits justified a pre-filing injunction to prevent vexatious litigation | Court denied injunction after applying Safir factors; issued a warning and allowed defendants to renew motion if frivolous filings recur |
Key Cases Cited
- Shafi v. British Airways, PLC, 83 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 1996) (district court may impose sanctions for abuse of the judicial process)
- Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) (establishes factors for pre-filing injunctions)
- Levine v. Landy, 860 F. Supp. 2d 184 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) (multiple suits against same defendants may still fall short of justifying injunction)
- Swiatkowski v. Citibank, 745 F. Supp. 2d 150 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (pro se plaintiffs may receive some deference where applicability of preclusion doctrines is unclear)