Langadinos v. Southern New England School of Law, Inc., Civil Action 2008-2064.

• Decision Date: 20 September 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action 2008-2064.
• Parties: Gregory LANGADINOS v. SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW, INC. & another.[1]
• Court: Massachusetts Superior Court

Gregory LANGADINOS v. SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW, INC. & another.^[1]

Civil Action No. 2008-2064.

Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk

September 20, 2012

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

ELIZABETH M. FAHEY, Justice of the Superior Court.

The pro se plaintiff, Gregory Langadinos (" Mr.Langadinos"), brought this action against the defendants, Southern New England School of Law, Inc. and Robert Victor Ward, Jr. (collectively, the " Defendants"), alleging claims based on breach of contract and defamation. In a Memorandum of Decision and Order dated May 3, 2012, I dismissed the case for fraud upon the court and for repeated non-compliance with my orders.

The Defendants now seek a permanent injunction enjoining Mr Langadinos from filing any future law suits in the Massachusetts state court system without prior approval by a justice thereof. As they argued in their Memorandum of Law and at the June 28, 2012 hearing, the Defendants seek an injunction because " Mr. Langadinos has filed numerous baseless lawsuits in which he has engaged in character assassinations, filed vexatious and fraudulent pleadings and ... threatened his ‘ victims' with endless vexatious, prohibitively expensive civil and criminal litigation unless they accede to his monetary demands."

I have already determined that in this case plaintiff " altered documents before filing them in order to hinder Defendants' ability to respond to discovery requests and to get their lawyer sanctioned; filed two baseless lawsuits in another county of the Superior Court in order to harass and intimidate Defendants' lawyer and to interfere with Defendants' ability to mount a defense in this case; committed perjury in open court; filed two materially false affidavits and one forged affidavit knowing that the affiants had disclaimed them; filed at least two of his own materially false affidavits in different attempts to obtain favorable rulings; knowingly made false statements of material fact before [the] court; purposefully misrepresented [the] court's prior rulings in an attempt to conceal his fraud; systematically abused the judicial process in order to make it difficult or impossible for Defendants to respond to his motions; and repeatedly and unabashedly placed slanderous, defamatory and racially charged language in his pleadings, in complete disregard of [the] court's orders." I also found that the plaintiff " harassed and intimidated two friends, both lawyers and officers of this court, into signing false affidavits [footnote omitted] so that they could assist him in perpetrating the fraud, and so that he could claim attorney/client privilege in order to cover it up." See Court's Memorandum of Decision and Order dated May 3, 2012 at pp. 26-27.

" The Superior Court may prudentially exercise its inherent discretion to enjoin a plaintiff from bringing future legal proceedings without prior leave of court when such an injunction is necessary to put ‘ a stop to harassing, vexatious, and repetitious litigation.’ " Pandey v. Two Assoc. Justices of Superior Court, 2004 WL 1872741 at * 3 (Mass.App.Ct.2004) (unpublished opinion pursuant to Rule 1:28), quoting State Realty Co. of Boston v. MacNeil, 341 Mass. 123, 124 (1960). This Court agrees with the Defendants that the circumstances presented by this case, plus the plaintiff's history of filing cases as discussed below, warrant the exercise of this discretion. His filing history indicates that Mr. Langadinos has filed numerous cases, at least some of which show his willingness to engage in a continuing pattern of harassing, vexatious, and repetitious litigation. Moreover, by virtue of his pro se and his mostly indigent statuses, Mr. Langadinos cannot be effectively deterred by the threat or actual imposition of monetary penalties.^[2]

A review of the Superior Court computer dockets indicate the following:

Plaintiff filed in Bristol County, Langadinos v. Rainville et al, 1998-8643, in which he alleged a medical malpractice claim, 93A claims, and alleged violations of the patient's bill of rights against Dr. Rainville. Plaintiff also brought promissory estoppel claims against a vice president at Health South. Plaintiff appealed a Superior Court judge's allowance of summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's claims except the medical malpractice claim. That medical malpractice claim was reviewed by a tribunal which found for Dr. Rainville. When Mr. Langadinos failed to post the bond, that claim was dismissed. The 1:28 decision affirmed the Superior Court's actions.^[3]

Plaintiff has also filed in Middlesex:

1) Langadinos v. Johnson, 1986-4625 (disposed by settlement)

2) Langadinos v. Langadinos, 1996-3806 (disposed by settlement)

3) Langadinos v. Patel et al, 2010-4502 (he's indigent; disposed by settlement)

4) Langadinos v. Kurnos et al, 2011-2356 and Langadinos v. Southern New England School of Law, Inc. et al, 2011-2357. Although these cases relate to his Suffolk case, he filed these separately in Middlesex alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act and seeking an injunction from harassment; the dockets reflect h

...