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, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

January 31, 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.

          JULIE A. KENNEDY ROBERTA ANNE BURCZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C On behalf of Defendant David Keith Oaks, P.A.

          DAVID KEITH OAKS Defendant appearing pro se

          DENNIS FRANCIS GLEASON JARDIM, MEISNER & SUSSER, P.C. On behalf of Defendants Michael Ross Marsh and Trista Lenore Zimmerman

          JOHN ANDREW KINSEY FLORIO, PERRUCCI & STEINHARDY, LLC

          BRIAN PATRICK BUDIC FLORIO PERRUCCI STEINHARDT & FADER LLC On behalf of Defendants Richard Dalton, Andrew Deschenes, Roger D. Eaton, Daniel Roe, Kenneth W. Doherty, Charlotte County, Florida

          CARYN PAMELA SIPERSTEIN FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL On behalf of Defendants John Leo Burns and Lisa Marie Spader Porter

          MARC C. SINGER SAIBER, LLC On behalf of Bradly Joseph Linenberg

          DIANA C. MANNING BRESSLER, AMERY, & ROSS On behalf of Movant Todd B. Miller

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         This case is a companion case to Civil Action 16-9384, which this Court dismissed on December 18, 2018. In this and the other action, the claims of Plaintiff, Albert Robinson, appearing pro se, relate 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 had been involved in a massive conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), among other claims. (See 16-cv-9384, Docket No. 125.) In making the determination to dismiss Plaintiff's earlier filed action, 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. at 28.) “This Court's independent review of all his other cases reveals that Plaintiff's claims are the same every time, with minor variations as to defendants and allegations.” (Id. at 25.) The instant action is another one of those cases.

         In the 16-9384 matter, this Court issued a litigation preclusion order on January 22, 2019, which provides, “[I]n the interests of repose, finality of judgments, protection of defendants from unwarranted harassment, and concern for maintaining order in the Court's dockets, Plaintiff is enjoined in this District from litigating his claims concerning the money laundering and fraud scheme alleged and as set forth in the Complaint in this matter against any defendant he believes is liable for that scheme without first obtaining permission from this Court.” (See 16-cv-9384, Docket No. 135.) Because this action was filed prior to the entry of the litigation preclusion order, the Court will separately assess its viability and pending motions.

         For the reasons expressed below, the Court will dismiss all claims and issue the same litigation preclusion order that was ...


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.