Order | Filed: April 23, 2026
| Entered: April 23, 2026
O'Brien v. U.S. Bancorp et al
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | Connecticut
Order
ORDER: Following a foreclosure action in state court involving a property at 114 Wetmore Avenue, the plaintiff brings this action against a number of entities, alleging, in part, violations of the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. See ECF No. 1 at 31. On April 9, 2025, the Court stayed the case. ECF No. 10. The Court pointed out that it had already dismissed a suit filed by the plaintiff, in part, on the basis of res judicata, see O’Brien v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., LLC, No. 3:23-cv-01369 (MPS), 2025 WL 964813, at *10 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2025), and that “[t]his case appears to arise out of the same state court proceedings as that case.” ECF No. 10. The Court, accordingly, directed the plaintiff “to SHOW CAUSE why all claims in this case are not also barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” Id. The plaintiff timely responded to the show cause order. ECF No. 11. Having reviewed the plaintiff’s response, the Court concludes that the claims are barred.
In Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, the plaintiff filed suit against Rushmore Loan Management Services, U.S. Bancorp, Caliber Home Loans, Fay Servicing, Lone Star Global Acquisitions, and John Grayken. 2025 WL 964813, at *1. Like the present action, that suit was predicated on the earlier state foreclosure action involving the 114 Wetmore Avenue property, see id. at *1-2, and likewise involved federal RICO claims. See id. at *6. The Court dismissed the claims without prejudice against U.S. Bancorp and Loan Star due to inadequate service, id at *10, and dismissed with prejudice the claims against Rushmore, Caliber, and Fay under the doctrine of res judicata. Id. As to those latter claims, the Court noted that “[o]rders and filings from the state court proceedings [ ] indicate that Plaintiff’s present claims were in fact litigated in state court—and are based on the same transaction as that action.” Id. at *10.
The Court once again concludes that, due to the previous state court action, the plaintiff’s claims are precluded—this time, as brought against all defendants. “In considering the preclusive effective of a state court judgment on a subsequent federal action[,] a court consults the preclusion laws of the state in which the judgment was issued.” Homeowners Finance Co. v. Lamont, No. 3:20-cv-01282, 2021 WL 4263376, at *10 (D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2021). For res judicata to apply under Connecticut law: “(1) the judgment must have been rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the parties to the prior and subsequent actions must be the same or in privity; (3) there must have been an adequate opportunity to litigate the matter fully; and (4) the same underlying claim must be at issue.” Giolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc., 332 Conn. 67, 75 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). In his response to the show cause order, the plaintiff argues that: 1) no final judgment exists in the state court action, ECF No. 11 at 2-3; 2) notwithstanding a final judgment, the Court should exercise its equitable powers and grant the plaintiff relief because the final judgment issued from fraud, id. at 4-5; and 3) in light of new facts that have surfaced, the plaintiff did not have “a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues.” Id. 5-7. In so arguing, the plaintiff rehashes variations of the same unsuccessful arguments he raised in his previous federal case.
As to whether the state foreclosure action resulted in a final judgment, the State Court docket reflects not only a final judgment, but the denial of multiple motions to open and vacate the judgment filed by the plaintiff. See O’Brien v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, No. 23-cv-01369, ECF No. 74-10 at 6, 7, 8. Moreover, the Court has already adjudicated this issue. See 2025 WL 964813, at *9 (“Plaintiff appears to concede that the foreclosure action was adjudicated on the merits... State court filings likewise indicate that the Connecticut Superior Court entered judgment on the merits.”). The Court has also previously addressed and rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s “new evidence” should forestall the application of res judicata. See 2025 WL 964813, at *10 (citing Powell v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-01879 (JAM), 2019 WL 3412174, at *5 (D. Conn. July 29, 2019) aff’d, 840 F. App’x 610 (2d Cir. 2020) (“Connecticut law is clear that res judicata does not turn on whether a party happens to have acquired additional evidence or developed new legal theories to support claims that could have been brought in the first instance in the prior action.”))... (truncated)