Rajapakse v. Shaw

Background

Samantha D. Rajapakse, representing herself, first sued Seyfarth Shaw, and later amended her complaint to add Robert Szyba and Carla Lanigan. The opinion says the defendants were involved in representing Equifax in a separate case. Rajapakse asserted a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and claims based on various New York criminal statutes.

On March 15, 2021, the court dismissed the claims based on New York criminal statutes for failure to state a claim. The defendants then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They also requested restrictions on Rajapakse’s future filings.

Report and recommendation

The court referred dispositive motions to Magistrate Judge Wang. Judge Wang recommended granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denying Rajapakse leave to file a second amended complaint, and enjoining—meaning prohibiting—her from filing new civil actions in this court related to the defendants’ representation of Equifax.

The report and recommendation explained that the parties had fourteen days to file written objections and warned that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. Rajapakse did not file objections by the original deadline. After she said she had not received the report, the court extended the deadline, sent the report and extension by email, and mailed them by certified mail. No objections were filed by the extended deadline or afterward.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error because no party objected. The court stated that its review revealed no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation in full.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Rajapakse’s claims with prejudice. It denied her leave to file a second amended complaint. The court also enjoined her from filing any new civil actions in that court related to the defendants’ representation of Equifax in the separate case identified in the order.

Because the parties had been adequately warned about the consequences of not objecting, the court ruled that appellate review was precluded. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to close the case.