Whether a pro se litigant's repeated filing of substantially similar lawsuits challenging a mortgage default constitutes vexatious litigation warranting sanctions or filing restrictions

No question identified. : United States Supreme Court No.TBD JACQUES SAADE PlaintiffAppellant v. FAY SERVICING LLC; WILMINGTON TRUST, NA, AS Trustee of MFRA Trust 2014-2 DefendantsAppellees Appeal from the United States District Court For the District of Massachusetts Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), Case # 20-11951-IT-and Appeal from the First Circuit Affirming the Dismissal. First Circuit Case # No.22-1298 APPELLANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND FILING THE APPELLATE BRIEF Appellant respectfully submits this motion to request the court to grant an extension to file the appellate brief within two month and until March 2, 2024. The ground of this motion is that appellant just received from the court the Rules that the clerk’s office sent. The Rules appear to require filing the brief within 90 of the judgment date. The judgment dated was October 2, 2023. The Rules also allow an extension of two month. In light of the instant circumstances, appellant respectfully requests the court to allow this extension to file this appeal by March 2, 2024. ji y subgitted, Pe, (shade? t ( Box 15303 Boston, MA 02215 Dated: January 2, 2024 Case: 22-1298 Document: 00118058318 Page:1 Date Filed: 10/02/2023 — Entry ID: 6595056 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 22-1298 JACQUES SAADE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. FAY SERVICING, LLC; WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., as Trustee of MFRA Trust 2014-2, Defendants Appellees, DOE, Defendant. Before Barron, Chief Judge, Lynch and Howard, Circuit Judges. JUDGMENT Entered: October 2, 2023 Plaintiff-appellant Jacques Saade appeals from the district court's dismissal of his claims and its denial of his motion for leave to amend the complaint in what appears to be his sixth appeal stemming from his 2010 mortgage default. Defendant-appellees defend the district court's dismissal and denial of leave to amend and argue, as they have done in prior appeals by Saade, that Saade's opening brief so egregiously fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that summary dismissal of the appeals is warranted. We agree. See, e.g., RodriguezMachado v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 48, 48 (1st Cir. 2012) (per curiam) ("substantial ‘noncompliance! with important ‘appellate rules, in and of itself, constitutes sufficient cause to dismiss an appeal'") (quoting Reyes-Garcia v. Rodriguez & Del Valle, Inc., 82 F.3d 11, 14-15 (1st Cir. 1996) (alteration omitted)). As in the prior appeals, Saade has again filed a brief that fails to develop a coherent argument on his claims, fails to provide relevant record citations, and reargues the merits of issues decided in prior cases that are well outside the scope of the present appeal, all in contravention of Fed. R. App. P. 28(a). In any event, the appeal fails to present any substantial issue for review. To the extent Saade asserted claims alleging violations of state or federal law regarding alleged defects in pre Case: 22-1298 Document: 00118058318 Page:3 Date Filed: 10/02/2023 — Entry ID: 6595056 Saade has filed numerous repetitive and overlapping lawsuits in state and federal court over the last eight years stemming from the same facts, and he seems to be unwilling to accept any adverse ruling as dispositive. We note that Saade's pattern of abusive litigation practices has resulted in filing restrictions in both state and federal trial courts, and, notwithstanding those restrictions, Saade has continued in his attempts to repackage old claims that have been repeatedly rejected. Sanctions are warranted based on both frivolousness and vexatious litigation conduct. In accordance with appellees’ affidavit of costs, an award of $5,508.24 is granted.” Saade is again warned that filing restrictions may be imposed if he persists in his efforts to revive and relitigate issues that were or could have been raised in prior matters. Finally, Saade's motion for sanctions and his motion to remand this matter, which was filed in federal district court, to state court, are denied as baseless. To the ex