- 1 -

Supreme Court

No. 2022-31-Appeal.

(PM 20-8084)

Arturo P. Batac :

v. :

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al. :

O R D E R

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.
- 2 -

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 
- 3 - 

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 ___ day of February, 2023.

 By Order, 

 _____________________

 Clerk

16th

/s/ Debra A. Saunders, Clerk
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)

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.

Case Number No. 2022-31-Appeal

(PM 20-8084)

Date Order Filed February 16, 2023

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and 

Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court 

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Richard D. Raspallo

Attorney(s) on Appeal

For Plaintiff:

Arturo P. Batac, Pro Se

For Defendants:

Rowdy M. Cloud, Esq.

David E. Fialkow, Esq.