Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered Since this matter was initiated on May 10, 2023, Plaintiffs have persistently ignored court orders and this court’s warnings against repetitive and frivolous filings. Four of the matters filed as related have been dismissed, and, pursuant to my order on February 2, 2026, have been stayed pending appeal. See 23-cv-11042 (“Devol Pond I”); 24-cv-10520 (“Devol Pond II”); 25-cv-10994 (“Devol Pond III”); 25-cv-12185 (“Devol Pond IV”). My February 2order, [see e.g., 23-cv-11042, Doc. No. 179 , clearly explained that because this matter is on appeal, this court is divested of its jurisdiction. Despite this order, Plaintiffs have continued to file dispositive motions and open new actions. On May 18, 2026, Plaintiffs opened a new docket and filed an Amended Complaint. See 26-cv-12253 (“Devol Pond V”). I issued an order stating that Plaintiffs improperly commenced that action, directed Plaintiffs to file the amended complaint in 25-cv-10994, and administratively closed that case. [26-cv-12253 Doc. Nos. 5 , 6 . Again, ignoring that order, Plaintiffs filed emergency motions for declaratory judgment. [26-cv-12253 Doc. Nos. 7 , 8 . Just a few days later, on May 22, 2026, Plaintiffs opened yet another docket and filed an Amended Complaint that appears to be a continuation of the Amended Complaint filed in Devol Pond V. See [26-cv-12352, Doc. No. 1 (“Devol Pond VI”). No filing fee was paid in either of the two new actions. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction and declaratory relief in this action. [26-cv-12352, Doc. No. 2 . Additionally, even though Devol Pond III is stayed, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for declaratory judgment on June 17, 2026. [25-cv-10994, Doc. No. 114 . These filings reflect a continuing pattern of disregarding this Court’s orders and attempting to relitigate matters despite the pendency of the appeal and the resulting stay.
I have issued multiple warnings to Plaintiffs regarding the consequences of filing repetitive claims and motions lacking any meaningful legal or evidentiary basis. In Devol Pond I, I stated that, “the Court admonishes the Hadleys that their filings—particularly the motion to disqualify and the motion for superintendence—reflect an alarming lack of attention to the needed legal or evidentiary support, which implicates a question of recklessness.” [23-cv-11042, Doc. No. 150 at 41 . I noted that the motions “fall well below expectations for filings by an officer of the court or member of this District’s bar.” [Id. at 42]. Again, in Devol Pond II, I stated that Plaintiffs “do not appear to have justified how certain claims brought here, practically indistinguishable from claims against identical defendants in Devol Pond I, could survive the doctrines of claim or issue preclusion. Previously, I warned the Hadleys that continued inattention to legal requirements could be expected to result in sanctions... [s]o again, if the Hadleys attempt to refile claims against any Moving Defendants, the Hadleys should be fully prepared to demonstrate that the claims are well-grounded in fact and warranted under the law.” [24-cv-10520, Doc. No. 44 at 11]. Plaintiffs have failed to heed those warnings. Enough is enough. I have warned Plaintiffs of the consequences of filing duplicative, repetitive, and unfounded motions or claims against Defendants while this matter remains pending in the First Circuit. Because Plaintiffs have persisted in initiating new actions based on the same underlying claims and have repeatedly disregarded this court&... (truncated)