NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

PATRICIA A. HANDLEY, :

:

:

 

Plaintiff, :

:

Civil Action No. 11-2904 (SRC)

v.

CHASE BANK USA, NA and 

REED SMITH LLP, 

:

:

:

:

: 

:

OPINION

Defendants. :

PATRICIA A. HANDLEY, :

:

:

 

Plaintiff, :

:

Civil Action No. 11-2906 (SRC)

v.

CITIBANK(SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.

and CHASE BANK USA, N.A., 

:

:

:

:

: 

:

Defendants. :

CHESLER, U.S.D.J.

This matter comes before the Court on four motions to dismiss these two Complaints for

failure to state a valid claim for relief, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), in

these related actions: 1) two motions in Civil Action No. 11-2904 filed by Defendants Chase

Bank USA, NA and Reed Smith LLP (collectively, the “2904 Defendants”); and 2) two motions

in Civil Action No. 11-2906 filed by Defendants Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. and Chase Bank

Case 2:11-cv-02906-SRC-MAS Document 22 Filed 09/12/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 353
USA, N.A. (collectively, the “2906 Defendants”). Plaintiff has not opposed these motions. For

the reasons that follow, the motions to dismiss will be granted.

In brief, all Defendants move to dismiss the two Complaints on the basis of res judicata. 

The Complaints in these two cases expressly state that these suits seek to litigate cases that were

previously filed, litigated, and concluded. 

The Complaint in Civil Action No. 11-2906 states that, on August 4, 2005, Plaintiff filed

suit against the 2906 Defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey, and the case was removed

to this Court. The Complaint further asserts that the August 2005 Complaint alleged facts

relating to credit card loan transactions in 2002, 2003, and 2004 between Plaintiff and

Defendants, and that Plaintiff was troubled by harassing collection efforts in 2004 and 2005. The

August 2005 Complaint asserts two claims: 1) Defendants made deceptive disclosures to induce

Plaintiff to agree to the loans; and 2) Defendants knowingly used debt collection agencies which

violated the FDCPA and intentionally inflicted emotional abuse on Plaintiff. The Complaint in

Civil Action No. 11-2906 asserts these same two claims. The claims asserted in the August 2005

Complaint and the claims asserted in the Complaint in Civil Action No. 11-2906 are virtually

identical. 

The Complaint in Civil Action No. 11-2904 states: “This suit was filed in U.S. District

Court on May 8, 2009.” (Compl. at 1.) The Complaint acknowledges at the outset, then, that

this action was previously filed in this Court. Aside from certain prefatory material, the May

2009 Complaint and the Complaint in Civil Action No. 11-2904 are virtually identical. There is

no material difference between the claims asserted in the May 2009 Complaint and the claims

asserted in the Complaint in Civil Action No. 11-2904.

2

Case 2:11-cv-02906-SRC-MAS Document 22 Filed 09/12/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 354
Furthermore, the Complaints in both Civil Action Nos. 11-2904 and 11-2906 state that

both previously-filed cases ended in judgments, which were appealed to the Third Circuit, that

the Third Circuit upheld those judgments, and that the Supreme Court has denied petitions for

certiorari in both cases. 

Under Third Circuit law:

A party seeking to invoke res judicata must establish three elements: (1) a final

judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their

privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.

Duhaney v. AG of the United States, 621 F.3d 340, 347 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has stated:

A complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations,

taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. If the allegations, for

example, show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the

complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim . . . Whether a

particular ground for opposing a claim may be the basis for dismissal for failure to

state a claim depends on whether the allegations in the complaint suffice to

establish that ground . . .

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). 

It is apparent from the face of the two Complaints that the allegations in those Complaints

suffice to establish every element of the affirmative defense of res judicata. Both Complaints

allege a final judgment on the merits in prior suits involving the same parties and the same

causes of action.

The Complaints in both Civil Action Nos. 11-2904 and 11-2906 fail to state a claim

because the allegations, taken as true, show that relief is barred by the affirmative defense of res

3

Case 2:11-cv-02906-SRC-MAS Document 22 Filed 09/12/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 355
judicata. The motions to dismiss will be granted, and the Complaints will be dismissed with

prejudice. 

 /s Stanley R. Chesler 

STANLEY R. CHESLER

United States District Judge

Dated: September 12, 2011

4

Case 2:11-cv-02906-SRC-MAS Document 22 Filed 09/12/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 356