Arturo P. Batac v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Supreme Court
No. 2022-31-Appeal.
(PM 20-8084)
Arturo P. Batac :
v. :
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al. :
ORDER
This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on January 25,
2023, pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues
raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The plaintiff, Arturo P. Batac
(plaintiff), appeals pro se from a Superior Court order granting a motion by the
defendants, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Rushmore Loan Management
Services (collectively, defendants), to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint.
On appeal, the plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that the defendants improperly placed his
mortgage account into delinquency status, thereby preventing him from refinancing
his mortgage. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and
carefully reviewing the record, we are satisfied that cause has not been shown and
that the appeal may be decided at this time. For the reasons set forth herein, we
affirm the order of the Superior Court.
-1-
At the outset, we note that plaintiff’s statement filed pursuant to Article I, Rule
12A of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure not only fails to assert any
claim of error on the part of the trial justice, but it also fails to coherently present
arguments in support of overturning the order of the Superior Court. The plaintiff’s
Rule 12A statement merely reiterates his belief that he was wronged by defendants
and that defendants’ actions violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. We have
consistently held that “simply stating an issue for appellate review, without a
meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court
in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that
issue.” Terzian v. Lombardi, 180 A.3d 555, 558 (R.I. 2018) (brackets omitted)
(quoting Horton v. Portsmouth Police Department, 22 A.3d 1115, 1130 (R.I. 2011)).
Further, as the trial justice correctly noted, plaintiff’s amended complaint fails
entirely to comply with the pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8 of the Superior
Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Of note, the amended complaint was filed after the
trial justice warned plaintiff that the original complaint was wholly insufficient and
afforded him additional time to file an amended complaint and the opportunity to
obtain counsel. The plaintiff’s amended complaint consists simply of broad
conclusory statements that defendants violated the law without stating how
defendants violated the law, and it does not set forth any facts or circumstances
-2-
related thereto. Therefore, defendants were not provided with fair and adequate
notice of the type of claims being asserted by plaintiff as required by Rule 8.
While pro se litigants are often provided greater latitude by courts, “they are
not entitled to greater rights than those represented by counsel.” Terzian, 180 A.3d
at 558-59 (quoting Jacksonbay Builders, Inc. v. Azarmi, 869 A.2d 580, 585
(R.I. 2005)). The trial justice provided the plaintiff with every opportunity to
obtain legal counsel, warned of the disadvantages of proceeding as a pro se
litigant, and explained the possible consequences of failing to adhere to our
pleading requirements and the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Before this
Court, the plaintiff again stated that he was wronged by the defendants but failed to
specify any errors purportedly made by the trial justice. We are simply unable to
adjudicate claims, regardless of whether the party is pro se or represented by counsel,
when the pleadings fail to comply with our most basic requirements.
Accordingly, the Superior Court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to
dismiss is affirmed, and judgment shall enter in favor of the defendants. The record
may be returned to the Superior Court.
Entered as an Order of this Court this 16th
___ day of February, 2023.
By Order,
_____________________
/s/ Debra A. Saunders, Clerk
Clerk
-3-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case Arturo P. Batac v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al.
No. 2022-31-Appeal
Case Number
(PM 20-8084)
Date Order Filed February 16, 2023
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Richard D. Raspallo
For Plaintiff:
Arturo P. Batac, Pro Se
Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendants:
Rowdy M. Cloud, Esq.
David E. Fialkow, Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)