日志
Swaida v. Flannery 种族歧视案
|
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 11/22/2021 | 1 | COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Ladefara Gem, Fharah Ladey, Yong Li, Monica Swaida. (Attachments: # 1 envelope, # 2 Exhibit)(Castilla, Francis) (Entered: 11/23/2021) |
| 11/23/2021 | 2 | ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal. (Finn, Mary) (Entered: 11/23/2021) |
| 12/06/2021 | 3 | MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief by Ladefara Gem, Fharah Ladey, Monica Swaida, Martha Omorodion Mogaji. (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 12/06/2021) |
| 12/08/2021 | 4 | Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered granting 3 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (PSSA, 5) (Entered: 12/08/2021) |
| 12/13/2021 | 5 | MOTION for Leave to file electronically Pro Se by Martha Omorodion Mogaji. (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 12/13/2021) |
| 12/27/2021 | 6 | Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 5 Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se. "The motion is DENIED because Martha Omorodion Mogaji is not currently a party to this action."(PSSA, 5) (Entered: 12/27/2021) |
| 12/29/2021 | 7 | Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE"This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for plaintiffs' failure to comply with the December 8, 2021 Order requiring them to, by December 28, 2021, do the following: (1) either pay the $402 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs have failed to resolve the filing fee or file an amended complaint. The Clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal."(PSSA, 5) (Entered: 12/29/2021) |
| 12/29/2021 | 8 | Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE(PSSA, 5) (Entered: 12/29/2021) |
| 12/30/2021 | 9 | AMENDED COMPLAINT against Peter McAnespie, Robert Flannery, filed by Ladefara Gem, Fharah Ladey, Martha Omorodion Mogaji, Monica Swaida. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibits) (Pacho, Arnold) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/30/2021: # 3 Cover Letter) (Pacho, Arnold). (Entered: 12/30/2021) |
| 12/30/2021 | 10 | MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ladefara Gem. (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 12/30/2021) |
| 12/30/2021 | 11 | MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Martha Omorodion Mogaji. (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 12/30/2021) |
| 01/06/2022 | 12 | MOTION for Reconsideration re 8 Order Dismissing Case, 7 Order Dismissing Case, by Martha Omorodion Mogaji, Monica Swaida. (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 01/06/2022) |
| 01/06/2022 | 13 | MOTION for Leave to file electronically Pro Se by Martha Omorodion Mogaji. (Pacho, Arnold) (Entered: 01/06/2022) |
| 01/07/2022 | 14 | Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered finding as moot 10 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; finding as moot 11 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration; finding as moot 13 Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se. "Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Order to Dismiss, and Motion to Continue (Dkt. No. 12) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 is DENIED. The remaining pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11, and 13) are DENIED as MOOT, and the $402 filing and administrative fee is ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs. This action remains closed. The plaintiffs' motion miscites and blends Rules 60(a) and (b)(1). There was no clerical error to correct under Rule 60(a). With respect to Rule 60(b), "[a]s a precondition to relief under Rule 60(b), [a party] must give the trial court reason to believe that vacating the judgment will not be an empty exercise....motions for relief under Rule 60(b) are not to be granted unless the movant can demonstrate a meritorious claim or defense." Bouret-Echevarria v. Caribbean Aviation Maint. Corp., 784 F.3d 37, 46 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Loc. No. 59 v. Superline Transp. Co., Inc., 953 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 1992). Even if, without ruling, the plaintiffs' failure to timely and fully respond to the Courts order was otherwise excusable, the plaintiffs made no attempt to establish this precondition. Furthermore, a review of the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 9) reveals, among other things, that it fails to plausibly plead a federal claim. Absent a federal claim under 28 U.S.C. 1331, the Court would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), and the parties are not diverse under 28 U.S.C. 1332. Even if a the federal claim could be pleaded by further amendment, this Court would likely decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(2), because the state causes of action substantially predominate over any purported federal claim and in fact, may be dispositive of federal claims of discrimination. Moreover, there is apparently active litigation concerning the rights and obligations of most of the parties relating to the properties that are pending in the Superior Court, Flannery v. Li et al., 2181CV01607, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with those proceedings under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). In the interest of comity, this Court is sensitive to the unique state law interests and issues in determining real property interests between the parties. Here, in the Superior Court action, after a preliminary injunction entered with respect to a driveway easement, the defendants in that action, some of the plaintiffs here, raised the beach access easement issues here in the Superior Court Action, see Flannery v. Li et al., 2181CV01607 Paper 14, October 29, 2021, Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Preliminary Injunction, para. 5, albeit not in a counterclaim in that action. After a Single Justice of the Appeals Court denied their appeal of the driveway easement preliminary injunction, the defendants in that action, again some of whom are plaintiffs here, attempted to consolidate that case into this action without success. See Flannery v. Li et al., 2181CV01607 Paper Nos. 26, 32." (PSSA, 5) (Entered: 01/07/2022) |
