Court Opinion

ID: 9891657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 14:16:08.358594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:01:25.955011
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  23-P-441

                           BAHIG BISHAY & another 1

                                       vs.

                 OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION 2 & others. 3

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       The plaintiffs, Bahig and Mary Bishay (hereinafter the

 Bishays or plaintiffs), appeal from a judgment of the Superior

 Court that dismissed a "Verified Complaint for Declaratory and

 Injunctive Relief" that was signed by both of them.              The factual

 basis for the complaint appears to arise from a foreclosure that

 was initiated several years ago.

       In 2014, a Superior Court judge entered an injunction (2014

 injunction) that provides, among other things, that any

 complaint that either Bahig or Mary Bishay submits for filing in

 a "Massachusetts state court of original jurisdiction" shall

 first be reviewed by a Regional Administrative Justice (RAJ) to

 1 Mary Bishay, f/k/a Mary Costello.
 2 Doing business as PHH Corporation.
 3 Glen A. Messina, U.S. Bank National Association, Andrew Cecere,

 Locke Lord, LLP, Stephane Sprauge, Orlans PC, and Alison Orlans.
determine whether the complaint is frivolous.       If the RAJ

determines that the complaint is frivolous, the complaint shall

be dismissed.

       The process established by the 2014 injunction was followed

in this case.    The RAJ reviewed the complaint and various other

materials submitted by the Bishays, and, after a hearing,

determined that the complaint was frivolous and dismissed the

case.

       The Bishays' brief on appeal does not identify any error of

law or abuse of discretion in the judge's decision.       The

complaint does not identify facts from which a judge could

conclude that there is a plausible basis for the declaratory and

injunctive relief sought in the complaint.     Iannacchino v. Ford

Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 635-636 (2008).     The judgment

dismissing the complaint is accordingly affirmed.

                                      So ordered.

                                      By the Court (Vuono, Singh &
                                        Englander, JJ. 4),

                                      Clerk

Entered:    October 19, 2023.

4   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
                                  2