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.

Samulak v. Carington Mortgage Services, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

September 14, 2017

ROBERT LEE SAMULAK, Plaintiff,
v.
CARINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS [44], ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [43], AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [31]

          STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, United States District Judge

         In an effort to stop the foreclosure sale of his deceased parents' home, Plaintiff Robert Lee Samulak filed an action alleging violations of (1) the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68; (2) the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; and (3) Michigan Court Rule 2.112(B)(1). The Court referred the matter to the magistrate judge. ECF 18. Defendants Carington Mortgage Services, LLC and Mortgage Electronic Registration Service, Inc. filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). ECF 31. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") suggesting the Court grant Defendants' motion and dismiss Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. ECF 43. Plaintiff then filed timely objections. ECF 44. Having examined the record and considered the objections de novo, the Court will overrule the objections, adopt the Report, grant Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and dismiss the complaint.

         BACKGROUND

         The Report properly details the events giving rise to Plaintiff's action. ECF 43, PgID 635-39. The Court will adopt that portion of the Report.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Civil Rule 72(b) governs the review of a magistrate judge's report. A district court's standard of review depends upon whether a party files objections. The Court need not undertake any review of portions of a Report to which no party has objected. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985). De novo review is required, however, if the parties "serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). In conducting a de novo review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Plaintiff's Claims are Barred by Res Judicata

         Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's determination that res judicata bars his claims. Obj. 11, ECF 44, PgID 667. Plaintiff's principal argument is that all claims and issues have not been fully adjudicated on the merits. Plaintiff's Objection No. 11 is overruled.

         The original adjudication occurred in a federal bankruptcy court, so federal law governs its preclusive effect. Hamilton's Bogarts, Inc. v. Michigan, 501 F.3d 644, 650 (6th Cir. 2007) (preclusive effect of a judgment issued by a federal court is governed by federal law). Under federal law, res judicata applies "when (1) there is a final decision on the merits of the first action by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the second action involves the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) the second action raises an issue actually litigated or which should have been litigated in the first action; and (4) there is identity of claims." Walker v. Gen. Tel. Co., 25 F.App'x 332, 336 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Sanders Confectionery Prod., Inc. v. Heller Fin., Inc., 973 F.2d 474, 480 (6th Cir. 1992)). Once res judicata is established, it "extinguishes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part o[f] the transaction, or series of connected transaction, out of which the action arose." Walker, 25 F.App'x at 336 (quoting J.Z.G. Res., Inc. v. Shelby Ins. Co., 84 F.3d 211, 215 (6th Cir. 1996)).

         Res judicata applies here, and Plaintiff's claims are barred. The Court will address each element in turn.

         A. There was a final decision on the merits.

         The record shows that Plaintiff brought an adversary complaint in a federal bankruptcy court challenging the promissory note, mortgage, and foreclosure at issue here. ECF 31-11. After oral argument, the bankruptcy court filed an order dismissing the complaint "in its entirety and with prejudice." ECF 31-12, PgID 367. The order was a final order[1] on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction for purposes of res judicata. See Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, ...


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.