DRAGASH
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice, finding the complaint unintelligible, frivolous, and that leave to amend would be futile.
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against multiple defendants, including a bank and government entities, stemming from a 2012 mortgage enforcement ac…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Frivolous Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Daniel Dragash filed a pro se “Verified Complaint” in state court seeking damages against various defendants who include the United States Attorney’s Office, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Florida Attorney General, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), and its attorneys. (Doc. 1-1). As with numerous actions and filings by Plaintiff going back more than seven years, the complaint centers on Chase’s attempt in 2012 to enforce a mortgage on Plaintiff’s property, the filing of a proof of claim in Plaintiff’s subsequent bankruptcy, and Plaintiff’s alleged subsequent mistreatment by a “cabal” of entities, individuals, government officials, and courts, including this Court, which he describes as a “CORRUPT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.”1 Defendants removed
597 (11th Cir. 2019)), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 11478072 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2019); Bey v. McEwen, No. 8:20-cv-4-T-36TGW, 2019 WL 838240 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 836270 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2020) (dismissing complaint against federal judge without leave to amend); McKenna v. Obama, 3:15cv335/MCR/CJK, 2016 WL 5213940, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2016) (“[F]urther processing of what might be loosely described as plaintiff's claims, would result in waste of scarce public resources and would only serve as an incentive to further abuses.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 5110487 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2016). Therefore, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s dismissal order in Dragash v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 8:21-cv- 1642, Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss are granted and the complaint is dismissed prejudice as to all Defendants. This Court has declared Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant, because he has filed multiple proceedings, including this one, that perpetuate litigation on issues already decided and manifestly aim to intimidate and harass, with no objective good faith expectation of prevailing. See Dragash v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 8:21-cv-1642. The Court has therefore enjoined Plaintiff from filing any action, complaint, petition, or other document in the Middle District of Florida without first obtaining leave from the Middle District of Florida or the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and provided specific procedures Plaintiff must follow before any further filings. Id. The Court’s vexatious litigant order is equally applicable to filings in this case. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) "Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice” (Doc. 13) is GRANTED.
(2) “Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and GrayRobinson, P.A.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint” (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.
(3) Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, without leave to amend.
(4) The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and thereafter close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 24th day of September, 2021.
A 7) / ‘| U/ (Ef. a bel {OM