Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03449/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03449-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Balboa Life and Casualty
Appellee
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Appellee
Joseph Dixon
Appellant
Fairbanks Capital Corporation
Appellee
Nationscredit Home Equity Loan Trust
Appellee
Select Portfolio Servicing
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the reports and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond

L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3449

___________

Joseph Dixon, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Deutsche Bank National Trust * District of Minnesota.

Company; Nationscredit Home Equity *

Loan Trust; Select Portfolio Servicing, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Inc.; Fairbanks Capital Corporation; *

Balboa Life and Casualty, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 28, 2009

Filed: January 13, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Dixon appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

and denial of his motion to reopen a default judgment. After careful de novo review,

viewing the evidence and all fair inferences from it in the light most favorable to

Appellate Case: 08-3449 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 3623886
-2-

Dixon, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006), we find no

reversible error.

 

First, as to the claims related to the foreclosure of Dixon’s property and the

insurance policies provided by Balboa Life and Casualty, we conclude that summary

judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. Second, we conclude

that the remaining claims against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,

Nationscredit Home Equity Loan Trust, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., and Fairbanks

Capital Corporation were barred by res judicata. See United States v. Brekke, 97 F.3d

1043, 1047 (8th Cir. 1996) (listing factors determining whether res judicata applies);

see also Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 533 F.3d 634,

639 (8th Cir. 2008) (under res judicata, final judgment on merits of action precludes

parties from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action); In

re Marlar, 267 F.3d 749, 754 (8th Cir. 2001) (describing privity requirement).

Further, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Dixon’s motion to reopen the default judgment. See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr.,

506 F.3d 1111, 1117 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review).

The district court also enjoined Dixon from filing any further lawsuits in the

district court unless the pleadings are signed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 11, by an attorney admitted to the court, or a judicial officer has authorized

the filing of such pleadings in advance. In these circumstances, we believe it is

appropriate to modify the injunction so that it prohibits Dixon, absent compliance with

the listed requirements, from filing in the district court any further lawsuits related to

the mortgage or foreclosure on his property. See Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc.,

390 F.3d 812, 817-19 (4th Cir. 2004); Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 25 (2d

Cir. 1986).

Appellate Case: 08-3449 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 3623886
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as modified. We deny Dixon’s motions

for sanctions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-3449 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 3623886