Edwards v. Charles Schwab Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STEVEN EDWARDS,
PLAINTIFF,
V. Civ. Action No. 19-3614
(EGS/RMM)
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION,
DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mr. Edwards, proceeding pro se, brings this action against
Charles Schwab Corporation (“Charles Schwab”), alleging damages
as a result of Charles Schwab’s alleged “fraudulent association
with the assignment of a loan with [Mr. Edwards] to PHH Mortgage
(“PHH”) that resulted in the foreclosure of his property.”
Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 3, 25.
On October 11, 2022, the Court referred this case to
Magistrate Judge Meriweather for full case management up to but
excluding trial, including, with respect to any dispositive
motions, the preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant
to Local Civil Rule 72.3. On September 8, 2023, Magistrate Judge
Meriweather issued a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”)
recommending that the Court dismiss the case with prejudice and
deny without prejudice the then-pending motions. See R. & R.,
ECF No. 66.
1
Pending before the Court are Mr. Edwards’ objections to the
R. & R. See Pl.’s Obj., ECF No. 67. Upon careful consideration
of the R. & R., the objections, the applicable law, and the
entire record herein, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R. & R., ECF
No. 66.
I. Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party
may file specific written objections once a magistrate judge has
entered a recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A
district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition.” Id. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)
(“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.”).
A district court “must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected
to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “If, however, the party makes
only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his
original arguments, the Court reviews the [R. & R.] only for
clear error.” Houlahan v. Brown, 979 F. Supp. 2d 86, 88 (D.D.C.
2013) (citation omitted). “Under the clearly erroneous standard,
the magistrate judge’s decision is entitled to great deference”
and “is clearly erroneous only if on the entire evidence the
court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
2
mistake has been committed.” Buie v. Dist. of Columbia, No. CV
16-1920 (CKK), 2019 WL 4345712, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2019)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Objections must “specifically identify the portions of the
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made
and the basis for the objection.” LCvR 72.3(b). “[O]bjections
which merely rehash an argument presented and considered by the
magistrate judge are not properly objected to and are therefore
not entitled to de novo review.” Shurtleff v. EPA, 991 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
II. Discussion
On April 19, 2023, Magistrate Judge Meriweather issued an
Order to Show Cause, stating as follows:
Plaintiff Stephen S. Edwards (“Mr. Edwards”)
brought suit against Charles Schwab
Corporation (“Schwab”) for damages resulting
from Schwab’s allegedly fraudulent behavior
related to the mortgage of a home that Mr.
Edwards owned. See generally Compl., ECF No.
1. Although the Complaint does not identify
the address of the home at issue, Defendant
asserts that Mr. Edwards’s allegations pertain
to a property located at 1765 N. Lemon Street
in Mesa, Arizona. Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot.
for Entry of Default at 1, ECF No. 47. It
appears that Mr. Edwards has brought numerous
lawsuits in other federal courts based on the
same facts. See Super Trust Fund u/t/d
06/15/01 v. Charles Schwab Bank, et al., No.
2:13-cv-735 (D. Ariz.); Edwards v. Charles
Schwab Bank et al., No. 2:14-cv-66 (D. Ariz);
Stephen S. Edwards Inc. v. PHH Mortgage Corp.
3
et al., No. 2:15-cv-919 (D. Ariz.); Edwards v.
Experian Info. Solutions Inc. et al., 2:15-
cv-2640 (D. Ariz.); Edwards v. PPH Corp. et
al., 2:16-cv-1842 (D. Ariz.); Edwards v. PHH
Mortgage Corp. et al., 2:18-cv-4040 (D.
Ariz.); Edwards v. PHH Mortgage Corp. et al.,
1:22-cv-3926 (D. N.J.).
In Mr. Edwards’s most recent lawsuit in the
District of Arizona, the court found that Mr.
Edwards’s claims were barred by res judicata,
dismissed his claims with prejudice, declared
him a vexatious litigant, and ordered that Mr.
Edwards must obtain permission before bringing
any further litigation related to same facts.
See Edwards, 2:18-cv-4040 (D. Ariz.), ECF Nos.
99, 100. Specifically, that Court ordered that
Mr. Edwards and entities he wholly owned “must
obtain this Court’s approval before seeking to
commence any new action against Defendant PHH
Mortgage Corporation or any of its affiliates,
including officers, directors, employees,
agents, attorneys, predecessors, successors,
insurers, affiliates, subsidiaries or
parents, or arising out of the purchase,
mortgage, financing or refinancing of the
property located at 1765 N. Lemon Street,
Mesa, Arizona.” Edwards, 2:18-cv-4040 (D.
Ariz.), ECF No. 100 at 10. Mr. Edwards then
brought related litigation in the District of
New Jersey, and that court, finding that Mr.
Edwards had not presented any evidence that he
received permission from the District of
Arizona court to bring the lawsuit, ordered
Mr. Edwards to show cause as to why the court
should not dismiss his complaint with
prejudice. Edwards, 1:22-cv-3926 (D. N.J.),
ECF No. 20. After Mr. Edwards responded to the
order to show cause, the court dismissed the
case with prejudice. Edwards, 1:22-cv-3926 (D.
N.J.), ECF Nos. 22, 23.
Given that this lawsuit appears to be within
the scope of the District of Arizona’s
vexatious litigant order, and Mr. Edwards has
not presented any evidence that he received
permission from that court to bring the
4
present lawsuit, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr.
Edwards shall SHOW CAUSE no later than May 10,
2023 as to why the Court should not dismiss
his complaint with prejudice in accordance
with the District of Arizona court’s orders.
The Court further advises Mr. Edwards that if
he fails to timely respond to this Order the
Court may dismiss this case with prejudice.
Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 60.
On May 12, 2023, Mr. Edwards responded to the Order to Show
Cause on by filing a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that
the orders from the District of Arizona pertain only to
litigation in Arizona. See generally Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No.
62. Magistrate Judge Meriweather explained that she was
unpersuaded by his argument because “[t]he portion of the
District of Arizona order that requires Mr. Edwards to obtain
permission before bringing a new action is not limited that
jurisdiction.” R. & R., ECF No. 66 at 3 (citing Edwards, 2:18-
cv-4040 (D. Ariz.), ECF No. 100 at 10). Magistrate Judge
Meriweather further explained that
The only portion of the order that expressly
limits itself to matters “pending or closed in
the District of Arizona” concerns Mr. Edwards’
obligation to obtain permission before filing
“further motion or pleadings” in those cases.
See id. The subject of the present litigation—
the Property at 1765 N. Lemon St.—is squarely
within the scope of the District of Arizona’s
order. See id. As noted, the order encompasses
“any new action . . . arising out of the
purchase, mortgage, financing or refinancing
of the property located at 1765 N. Lemon
Street, Mesa, Arizona.” Id. This case concerns
5
alleged fraudulent behavior regarding the
mortgage for that property. See Compl.
R. &. R., ECF No. 66 at 3-4. Magistrate Judge Meriweather
recommends dismissing the instant case because Mr. Edwards did
not receive permission from the District of Arizona to bring the
litigation. Id. at 4.
Mr. Edwards’ objections fail to address Magistrate Judge
Meriweather’s determination that the instant case should be
dismissed because Mr. Edwards did not receive permission from
the District of Arizona to bring the litigation. See generally
Pl.’s Obj., ECF No. 67. Rather, Mr. Edwards casts aspersions on
Magistrate Judge Meriweather and others and claims that the
Arizona Order is frivolous because the case should not have been
removed from state to federal court. See generally id.“A court has the discretion to dismiss a complaint with
prejudice when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the complaint,
fails to follow the federal rules, or fails to follow court
orders.” O-J-R v. Ashcroft, 216 F.R.D. 150, 151 (D.D.C. 2003)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); LCvR 83.23). “It is well settled
that a court may dismiss a complaint filed by a vexatious
litigant that violates an injunctive order entered by another
court.” Justice v. Koskinen, 109 F. Supp. 3d 142, 147
(D.D.C. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
As Magistrate Judge Meriweather stated, “Mr. Edwards has not
6
received permission from the District of Arizona to bring this
litigation and is thus in violation of that court’s orders.” R.
&. R., ECF No. 66 at 4. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this
action.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate
Judge Meriweather’s R. &. R., see ECF No. 66; DISMISSES this
action with prejudice; and DENIES without prejudice Mr. Edwards’
pending Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 44; Motion for
Default Judgment, ECF No. 55; Motion to Strike, ECF No.
55; Motion for Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 59; and Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 62. An appropriate Order accompanies
this Memorandum Opinion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
September 21, 2023
7