Case Name: Jennifer W. BRODERICK, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., d/b/a PNC Mortgage, d/b/a PNC Mortgage Corporation, d/b/A PNC Bank, d/b/a PNC Bancorp, d/b/a PNC Financial Services, d/b/a PNC, Defendant, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-23
Citations: 554 F. App'x 27
Docket Number: No. 13-1158
Parties: Jennifer W. BRODERICK, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., d/b/a PNC Mortgage, d/b/a PNC Mortgage Corporation, d/b/A PNC Bank, d/b/a PNC Bancorp, d/b/a PNC Financial Services, d/b/a PNC, Defendant, Appellee.
Judges: Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and KAYATTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 554
Pages: 27–27

Head Matter:
Jennifer W. BRODERICK, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., d/b/a PNC Mortgage, d/b/a PNC Mortgage Corporation, d/b/A PNC Bank, d/b/a PNC Bancorp, d/b/a PNC Financial Services, d/b/a PNC, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 13-1158.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
May 23, 2014.
Valeriano Diviacehi and Diviacchi Law Office, on brief for Appellant.
Matthew M. O’Leary, Patrick T. Voke and LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation, on brief for Appellee.
Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and KAYATTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-Appellant Jennifer W. Broder-ick ("Broderick") alleged a Massachusetts state-law claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices in connection with the origination of a "no income verification" home mortgage loan. She now appeals from the district court's dismissal of her amended complaint as time-barred under the relevant statute of limitations.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record and Broderick's brief on appeal, we affirm the dismissal of her amended complaint substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. We add that, in view of the final judgment in Broderick's previous civil action, Broderick v. PNC Mortgage Corp., No. 1:11-cv-10047-WGY (D.Mass.), her claim is likely barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion. See, e.g., Silva v. City of New Bedford, 660 F.3d 76, 78-81 (1st Cir.2011).
AFFIRMED.