JACQUES E. MITRI v. CHRISTINA C. FERGUSON MARGE & Others.

── JACQUES E. MITRI v. CHRISTINA C. FERGUSON MARGE & Others. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General 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 25-P-121 JACQUES E. MITRI vs. CHRISTINA C. FERGUSON MARGE & others.1 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 The plaintiff, Jacques E. Mitri, appeals from the dismissal of his complaint filed in the Superior Court in 2024 against the defendants. The complaint was dismissed on the ground that it violated a 2019 Superior Court order prohibiting the plaintiff from filing new actions challenging his mortgage foreclosure and eviction without prior authorization. We affirm. Background. The plaintiff has spent well over a decade litigating and relitigating, in the Housing Court, the Land Court, the Superior Court, the Federal courts -- and in this court -- the foreclosure on his mortgage in 2011 and his 1Michael C. Marge, Louise M. Ferguson, Timothy J. Ferguson, and Brendan T. Ferguson. subsequent eviction from a single-family residence in Holliston. In one of his many lawsuits, filed in the Middlesex County Superior Court in July 2019 (No. 1981CV-01921), the plaintiff sued Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Aurora Bank, FSB, and Nationstar Mortgage LLC, alleging "an unlawful foreclosure" on his home. A Superior Court judge dismissed the complaint and denied several postjudgment motions. Thereafter, in an order entered on August 27, 2019 (2019 order), after denying yet another postjudgment motion, the judge added, "Unless he receives prior authority from this court, plaintiff is also prohibited from filing a new action in this court based on this same dispute." On July 18, 2024, without obtaining prior authorization, the plaintiff filed the current complaint against the defendants, alleging claims of "scam," mortgage fraud, unlawful foreclosure, title theft, violation of G. L. c. 93A, violation of what the plaintiff characterizes as a lis pendens restraining order,2 violation of a stay-away order, violation of the COVID-19 foreclosure moratorium, trespass, harassment, "assault in the house of worship," "intentional and emotional distress," and 2 A memorandum of lis pendens is not a restraining order. While the plaintiff may have obtained, for a brief time, a memorandum of lis pendens, and while the memorandum may have made selling the property more difficult, it did not prevent the true owner of the property from selling it to a willing buyer. See Debral Realty, Inc. v. DiChiara, 383 Mass. 559, 564 & n.9 (1981). 2 declaratory judgment (No. 2481CV-01879). A different Superior Court judge realized that the complaint had been accepted for filing without authorization under the 2019 order. Concluding that the complaint involved the same dispute as the 2019 action, the second judge determined that it should not be authorized and dismissed it. Discussion. The Superior Court has the discretion to prohibit a plaintiff from bringing future legal proceedings without prior leave of the court when such an action is necessary