Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robinson v. Section 23 Property Owner's Association, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

January 22, 2019

ALBERT ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
SECTION 23 PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants.

          ALBERT ROBINSON Plaintiff appearing pro se

          GREGG DOUGLAS WEINSTOCK VIGORITO, BARKER, PATTERSON, NICHOLS & PORTER LLP On behalf of Defendants Section 23, Property Owner's Association, Inc., James Shaefer, John McNamara, Auto Owners Insurance Co., The Law Firm of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., Richard Barton Akin, II, Michael Paul Versnik, and Patricia Schaefer

          DAVID JAMES MELVIN FRESH LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, PL On behalf of Keathel Chauncey, Fresh Legal Perspective, Ellie Teng, Scott Hundley, Zachary Heathcote, Suzanne Barnhart, Bruce Emerson, Bonafide Properties, LLC, David Melvin, and Chelsea Smith-Scott

          GARY ROBERT SHENDELL LINDSAY SAMANTHA KATZ SHENDELL & POLLOCK P.L. On behalf of Defendants Curtright Collins Truitt and The Law Firm of Curtright C. Truitt PA

          STAN WISNIEWSKI Defendant appearing pro se

          STEVEN JOSEPH BUTCHER Defendant appearing pro se

          JAMIE ELAINE MILLER Defendant appearing pro se

          DEVIN CRAIG SHULER Defendant appearing pro se

          DAVID KEITH OAKS Defendant appearing pro se

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         On December 18, 2018, this Court dismissed the complaint filed by Plaintiff, Albert Robinson, appearing pro se, against twenty-six individual and corporate defendants. Plaintiff's claims related to the possession and ultimate foreclosure of his mother's home in Punta Gorda, Florida, where he and his family resided, and his contention that all the defendants have liability under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), among other claims. (Docket No. 125.)

         The Court determined that personal jurisdiction was lacking over all the defendants in this Court. (Id. at 19.) In deciding whether to transfer or dismiss Plaintiff's case, the Court assessed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), whether Plaintiff's complaint, as well as his other essentially identical cases pending before this Court, were frivolous or malicious. (Id. at 27.) The Court also considered whether an injunction prohibiting Plaintiff from litigating his claims concerning the alleged money laundering and fraud scheme in this District without first obtaining permission from this Court was warranted. (Id. at 28.)

         On the first point, the Court determined to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, rather than transfer his case to another district. In making that determination, the Court noted, “Plaintiff has filed dozens of the same cases against a repetitive and ever-growing list of defendants, with all those cases being dismissed, primarily because of the venue Plaintiff has chosen to bring his claims once he was barred from Florida state court, which had fully adjudicated Plaintiff's claims on the merits.” (Id.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against all defendants with prejudice because, in addition to their harassing nature, no amendment could cure their viability in this Court. On the second point, the Court provided Plaintiff with 20 days to show cause as to why a litigation preclusion order should not be entered against him. (Id. at 29.)

         Plaintiff timely filed a response to the Court's Order. (Docket No. 127.) Plaintiff's response reasserts his claims against the defendants and reargues why personal jurisdiction can be exercised over the defendants. To the extent that the Court construes Plaintiff's submission as a motion for reconsideration, [1] the Court will decline to reconsider its decision.[2] With regard to the Court's intention to issue a litigation preclusion order against him, Plaintiff states that he objects to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.