Rowe v. Register

9 Citing cases

  1. Marceaux v. Belmont Univ.

    No. 1:18-cv-138-TAV-SKL (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 31, 2018)

    If Mr. Marceaux continues to make frivolous filings in this case, I further RECOMMEND that he be required to obtain leave of court before he may make any further filings. See Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding the proper procedure for handling a prolific, harassing, or vexatious filer is to enter an order requiring leave of court before the individual may file any further complaints, motions, or other documents); Siller v. Haas, 21 F. App'x 270, 271-72 (6th Cir. 2001) (enjoining petitioner from filing any civil lawsuits alleging factual or legal claims based upon or arising out of claims in the present action without first obtaining written certification from a judge that the claims asserted are not frivolous and that the suit is not brought for any improper purpose); Rowe v. Register, No. 1:07-cv-20, 2008 WL 2009186 *24 (E.D. Tenn. May 8, 2008) (exercising inherent authority and issuing a permanent injunction the court enjoined plaintiff from filing any further civil complaints, lawsuits, or pleadings of any kind against any of the specified persons without first obtaining the court's written approval). /s/_________

  2. Hajiani v. ESHA USA, Inc.

    No.: 3:14-CV-594-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Third, defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Count VII [Doc. 38 p. 3], which alleges that defendants breached their employment contract with plaintiff [Doc. 1 ¶¶ 93-99]. Defendants assert that plaintiff has failed to provide a copy of any written contract for employment and has offered only conclusory allegations that they failed to pay plaintiff all wages due at the agreed-upon rate of $10 per hour [Doc. 38 p. 3 (citing Rowe v. Register, No. 1:07-cv-20, 2008 WL 2009186, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. May 8, 2008) ("A conclusory allegation of breach of contract of employment is not enough to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint when there are no underlying factual allegations in the complaint that support and state a claim for breach of contract of employment that is plausible on its face."))].

  3. Martin v. Dana Driveshaft Manufacturing, LLC

    Case No. 3:09CV793 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 2, 2010)   Cited 6 times

    The second and fourth elements are satisfied because both actions involve the same parties — Dana and Martin — and arise from the same events and core of operative facts. See Rowe v. Register, 2008 WL 2009186, *16 (E.D. Tenn.) ("`Identity of claims or causes of action' means an identity of the underlying facts and events creating the right of action and of the evidence necessary to sustain each other.") I find that element satisfied.

  4. Wagoner v. Summit Medical Group

    Case No. 3:10-CV-254 (E.D. Tenn. Jun. 24, 2010)

    "It is permissible to require one who has abused the legal process to make a preliminary showing that a tendered civil lawsuit is not frivolous or vexatious before the Court permits it to be filed." Rowe v. Register, 1:07-CV-20, 2008 WL 2009186 at * 24 (E.D. Tenn. May 8, 2008) (citing Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43-50). When litigants, such as Wagoner, abuse their right or privilege of filing cases or motions in court, it has been held appropriate to prohibit the litigants from filing cases or motions, or only doing so with prior consent of the court.

  5. Jones v. City of Franklin

    Case No.: 3:08-cv-1134, JURY DEMAND (M.D. Tenn. Jun. 18, 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Allowing the submission of depositions from a different case, and stating that "[t]he use of a deposition in summary judgment proceedings need only satisfy the admissibility requirements for affidavits, namely, that they are: taken under oath; and based on personal knowledge"

    Under the doctrine of res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, a party can sue over a single cause of action only once. Specifically, a "final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action." Federated Dep't Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981) (citing Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948); Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352-53 (1877)); see also Rowe v. Register, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37925 (E.D. Tenn. 2008). Claim preclusion has been enforced by the courts in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits, burdensome expenses, delays to plaintiffs and vexatious litigation against defendants.

  6. Graham v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

    Case No. 1:08-CV-299 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 17, 2009)   Cited 10 times

    P. 11, including but not limited to monetary sanctions.Id. (quoting Rowe v. Register, No. 1:07-CV-20, 2008 WL 2009186, at *25 (E.D. Tenn. May 8, 2008)). After reading through this suit and the evidence of other actions Plaintiff has filed, the Court now views Plaintiff as a prolific litigator.

  7. Dover v. U.S.

    No. 3:07-CV-471 (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 3, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    Four elements need to be established for claim preclusion to apply: (1) a final decision on the merits was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the second action involves the same parties or their privies as in the first; (3) the second action raises a claim that was litigated or should have been litigated in the first action; and (4) an identity of claims or causes of action exists. Id.; see also Hayes v. City of Memphis, 108 F. App'x 262, 264 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 123 F.3d 877, 880 (6th Cir. 1997); Rowe v. Register, No. 1:07-cv-20, 2008 WL 2009186, at *15 (E.D. Tenn. May 8, 2008) (and cases cited therein). The four elements necessary for the application of res judicata are present here. First, the prior action in this court, FDIC v. Dover, No. 3:03-CV-210, slip op. (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 27, 2004), addressed the issue of plaintiff's restitution when the FDIC pursued collection efforts. That case went to a final judgment at the district court level and went on to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as well, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Dover, 453 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2006).

  8. Graham v. Fleissner Law Firm

    No.: 1:08-CV-00031 (E.D. Tenn. May. 22, 2008)   Cited 5 times

    P. 11, including but not limited to monetary sanctions.Rowe v. Register, No. 1:07-CV20, 2008 WL 2009186, *25 (E.D. Tenn. May 8, 2008). V. CONCLUSION

  9. Rowe v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

    No. E2014-01978-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 13, 2015)   Cited 2 times
    Recognizing the trial court's discretion to take judicial notice of a previous lawsuit brought by the litigant in federal district court when considering the issue of res judicata

    Mr. Rowe named the same defendants in a subsequent action brought in federal district court. See Rowe v. Register, No. 1:07-cv-20, 2008 WL 2009186 (E.D. Tenn. May 8, 2008) ("Register II"). In Register II, the district court dismissed with prejudice Mr. Rowe's complaint on the basis of, inter alia, the doctrine of res judicata and a finding that Mr. Rowe "does not have a legitimate claim of entitlement to any contract of employment as a teacher with the Hamilton County school system."