Judith Clinton v. Chad Babcock

• Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
• Decided: March 24, 2025
• Docket: 2023-0310-Appeal.
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court

No. 2023-310-Appeal. (WC 17-376)

Judith Clinton :

v. :

Chad Babcock et al. :

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. Supreme Court

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

OPINION

Justice Robinson, for the Court. The plaintiff, Judith Clinton, appeals from

a Superior Court order granting the defendants’ motion to enforce a dismissal

stipulation and a motion to vacate a scheduling order. The plaintiff also seeks to

appeal from three interlocutory orders: (1) an order denying her motion to amend

her complaint for the third time; and (2) two orders denying her motions to

reconsider the denials of her third and fourth motions to amend the complaint.

The Superior Court’s order granting defendants’ motions and deeming all

other pending motions in the case moot was entered on September 1, 2023.1 The

1 The plaintiff was represented by counsel in the Superior Court from on or about August 7, 2017 until March 18, 2019. Thereafter, she was unsuccessful in her attempts to engage new counsel. She then continued the litigation on a pro se basis -1- plaintiff timely appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in granting defendants’

motion to enforce the dismissal stipulation and the motion to vacate the scheduling

order.

This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the

parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be

summarily decided. After considering the written and oral submissions of the parties

and after carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown

and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument.

For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the September 1, 2023 order of the

Superior Court.

I

Facts and Travel

On August 7, 2017, plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint in

the Superior Court for Washington County against defendants Chad Babcock, Lisa

Nelson, Regina Foster Bartlett, and Caryn Sullivan. That complaint alleged that,

while plaintiff was the president of the “Wonderful Westerly Toastmasters Club,”

the just-named defendants made “false and malicious statements” about her and also

engaged in other conduct that caused her to sustain damage to her reputation, severe

in the Superior Court, although she did receive some minimal assistance from a limited scope attorney with respect to one count in her second amended complaint. The plaintiff is self-represented in this Court. -2- emotional distress, and monetary damages. On September 13, 2017, defendants

joined Toastmasters International as a third-party defendant. On September 19,

2017, plaintiff amended her complaint as a matter of right;2 she added as defendants

one Maria DiMaggio and also Toastmasters International, including a breach of

contract claim against the latter entity.3 Subsequently, in October 2019, the Superior

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint. The allegations

in plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which was filed on October 22, 2019,

incorporated the allegations from the first two complaints and added allegations of

defamation and emotional and physical distress against Toastmasters International.

On December 30, 2020, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint for a third time; and

on March 9, 2021, she moved to amend her complaint for a fourth time. Both the

third and fourth motions to file amended complaints were denied by the trial justice.

Thereafter, plaintiff, the individual defendants, and Toastmasters

International all signed a “Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal of All Claims,” which

2 The plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which was filed by plaintiff’s then-counsel, contains 114 paragraphs. We are not aware of any justification for such prolix pleading in a case of this nature. See Fiorenzano v. Lima, 982 A.2d 585, 589 (R.I. 2009) (noting “the inappropriately prolix nature of the complaint” in that case). 3 We shall hereinafter refer to Chad Babcock, Lisa Nelson, Regina Foster Bartlett, Caryn Sullivan, and Maria DiMaggio as “the individual defendants” in order to differentiate them from defendant Toastmasters International.

-3- provided for “the dismissal of all claims, counterclaims, and crossclaims * * * with

prejudice.” That Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal was filed on December 13,

2022.

Two weeks later, on December 27, 2022, the individual defendants and

Toastmasters International filed a “Stipulation of Dismissal,” dismissing with

prejudice “all remaining claims” between the individual defendants and

Toastmasters International. (The plaintiff was not a party to this December 27, 2022

Stipulation of Dismissal.)

On February 8, 2023, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Reply and Statement

for the Record Pertaining to the Re-opening of the File,” in which she alleged that

the individual defendants and Toastmasters International engaged in fraudulent

conduct because they had filed the December 27 Stipulation of Dismissal without

notifying her.

In one of their written submissions to this Court, the individual defendants

have explained that the December 27 Stipulation of Dismissal was “merely a

formality” which was intended to assure Toastmasters International that no

cross-claims or third-party claims remained viable. It is important to note that, as of

the date of the filing of the December 27 Stipulation of Dismissal, plaintiff was no

longer a party to the litigation due to the fact that the Stipulated Agreement of

-4- Dismissal (to which she was a signatory) had been filed two weeks earlier, on

December 13.4

On March 13, 2023, Toastmasters International filed an objection to plaintiff’s

“Reply and Statement,” asserting that the December 27 Stipulation of Dismissal was

filed to ensure that any remaining third-party claims related to the case were

dismissed. Toastmasters International further stated that plaintiff had not been

notified of the December 27 Stipulation of Dismissal because she was no longer a

party to the case as a result of the filing of the December 13 Stipulated Agreement

of Dismissal.

On March 24, 2023, a hearing was held with respect to plaintiff’s “Reply and

Statement.” The plaintiff and counsel for all defendants were present at the hearing.

At that hearing, the trial justice asked plaintiff if she was seeking to withdraw her

consent to the December 13 Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal. The plaintiff stated

that she “would like to rescind the stipulated dismissal that was signed by both

attorneys and [her] because [she] submitted [it] under duress * * *.” The trial justice

then proceeded to schedule a trial date. The record does not contain any indication

that the trial justice actually ordered that the December 13 Stipulated Agreement of

4 The Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal that was filed on December 13, 2022 was signed by plaintiff and counsel for all defendants. (At the hearing on March 24, 2023, plaintiff stated: “I filed [the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal] on December 13th, and the -- the case was closed on that date.”) -5- Dismissal was being vacated. However, in spite of the regrettable absence of a

notation to that effect in the docket, we infer from the trial justice’s scheduling of a

trial date that her intent at the March 24, 2023 hearing was to vacate the December

13 Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal.

On March 28, 2023, the individual defendants filed an objection to the trial

justice having sua sponte vacated the parties’ Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal at

the March 24 hearing.5 In their objection, the individual defendants asserted that the

trial justice erred in vacating the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal without the

consent of all parties. The individual defendants also contended that they had not

been afforded a sufficient opportunity to object to the trial justice’s ruling at the

March 24 hearing.

On March 29, 2023, plaintiff filed a reply to the individual defendants’

objection, contending that the absence of any objection by defendants at the March

24 hearing should be considered to constitute their consent to the vacating of the

Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal.

On April 21, 2023, a further hearing was held. At that hearing, the trial justice

noted that she had reviewed the objection of defendants to her having vacated the

Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal, and she said that she found the objection to

5 On April 5, 2023, Toastmasters International joined the individual defendants’ objection. -6- “have some merit.” The trial justice then stated that she would like to give both sides

an opportunity to brief the matter and engage in oral argument about it at a

subsequent hearing. She then vacated her previous order scheduling a trial date,

denied a motion for a change of venue that plaintiff had filed, and stated that there

would be a further hearing in June of 2023.

On April 24, 2023, Toastmasters International filed a motion to vacate the trial

justice’s scheduling order for hearings regarding dispositive and non-dispositive

motions. On May 26, 2023, the individual defendants filed a motion to enforce the

Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal, to which plaintiff timely objected.

On June 20, 2023, the trial justice heard argument on defendants’ motion to

enforce the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal and the motion to vacate the

scheduling order. Stating that she would look to the “substance of the motion[s]”

rather than the labels affixed to them, she then said she would “regard defendants’

motions as motions for the [c]ourt to reconsider its interlocutory decision to grant

plaintiff’s request to withdraw the stipulation of dismissal.” The trial justice stated

that it was appropriate for her to entertain defendants’ motions in view of her

determination that defendants had not been afforded proper notice at the March 24

hearing that the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal might be vacated. The trial

justice commented that, when a “change of course” is proper, she has the “inherent

power” to modify any interlocutory order prior to final judgment.

-7- The trial justice noted that, under Rule 41 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil

Procedure, when a “lawsuit is voluntarily dismissed * * * the lawsuit is no more.”

She stated that she lacked the authority to set aside a “consent order” without the

consent of all parties “absent fraud, mutual mistake, actual lack of consent to that

order, or some extraordinary circumstance.” The trial justice further stated that at

the March 24 hearing she had not afforded defendants proper notice or an

opportunity to object to what she had deemed to be a motion to vacate the Stipulated

Agreement of Dismissal.6 She stated that, after balancing the interests of the parties

and the “propriety of changing course,” she found that it was proper to grant

defendants’ motions to enforce the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal and to vacate

the scheduling order. As a result, she ordered the December 13, 2022 Stipulated

Agreement of Dismissal to be “reinstated.” On September 1, 2023, an order was

entered granting defendants’ motions and deeming all other pending motions in the

case moot.

The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal on September 19, 2023.

6 It will be recalled that the document filed by plaintiff, which was the focus of the March 24, 2023 hearing, was entitled “Reply and Statement for the Record Pertaining to the Re-opening of the File.” -8- II

Issues on Appeal

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial justice erred in granting defendants’

motion to enforce the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal and the motion to vacate

the scheduling order. The plaintiff also contends that the trial justice erred in treating

defendants’ motions as motions to reconsider. The plaintiff also appeals from

interlocutory orders denying her motions to amend her complaint a third and fourth

time.

III

Standard of Review

This Court has recognized that a trial justice has the authority to grant relief

from interlocutory rulings and may vacate a prior ruling if the trial justice determines

that he or she may have erred. See Atmed Treatment Center, Inc. v. Travelers

Indemnity Company, 285 A.3d 352, 362 (R.I. 2022). In addressing a motion to

reconsider, a trial justice “must balance the interests of the parties against a

thoughtful determination that a change of course is proper under the circumstances

* * *.” Id.

-9- IV

Analysis

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial justice properly granted plaintiff’s

request to “rescind” the December 13 Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal. The

plaintiff argues that her “Reply and Statement” complied with Rule 7(b) of the

Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and provided defendants with sufficient

notice of her intention to seek the rescission of the Stipulated Agreement of

Dismissal. She further contends that the absence of an objection by defendants at

the March 24 hearing demonstrated that they had no objection to the rescission of

the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal. She also contends that the trial justice erred

in treating defendants’ motions as motions to reconsider and in reinstating the

Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal.7 The plaintiff also asserts that, when she signed

the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal, she was under duress stemming from “health

issues;” she adds that she sought to withdraw her assent to the Stipulated Agreement

of Dismissal “when her health was restored.”

7 The plaintiff also contends that the trial justice erred in referencing Rule 60(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure while she was making the interlocutory decision to reinstate the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal. In view of the trial justice’s broad authority to grant relief from interlocutory rulings (see Atmed Treatment Center, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 285 A.3d 352, 362 (R.I. 2022)), we see no need to opine as to the applicability vel non of Rule 60(b) in a situation such as the highly unusual one that this case presents.

- 10 - The defendants8 contend that the trial justice erred when she vacated the

Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal and that the subsequent reversal of her decision

was proper. The defendants argue that the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal was

effectively a consent order that had a binding and final effect upon the parties and

the case. They add that, because the trial justice treated plaintiff’s “oral request” to

rescind the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal as a motion to vacate the Stipulated

Agreement of Dismissal, defendants thereby lost the opportunity to be heard and

proceed further. They contend that the trial justice’s interlocutory decision to

reverse her initial rescission of the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal was proper

and should stand on appeal. The defendants also argue that plaintiff knowingly and

voluntarily dismissed her claims with prejudice and that any health issue which she

may have been experiencing at the time of the signing of the document did not

constitute duress.

Rule 6(c) requires that a written motion and notice of the hearing “shall be

served not later than ten (10) days before the time specified for the hearing * * *.”

Pursuant to Rule 7(b)(1), an “application to the court for an order * * * shall state

with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.”

8 Since the individual defendants and Toastmasters International were of one mind as to the need to enforce the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal and to vacate the scheduling order even though they were represented by separate counsel, we shall hereinafter refer to them collectively as “defendants.” - 11 - In the case at bar, it was not at all clear prior to the March 24 hearing that

plaintiff’s “Reply and Statement” might be viewed as a motion to vacate the

Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal, and defendants were thereby deprived of the

notice required by Rule 6(c) and Rule 7(b)(1).9 See Tucker v. Kittredge, 795 A.2d

1115, 1118 (R.I. 2002). This Court has previously held that a stipulation that is

entered into with the assent of both parties “relative to * * * an element of a claim,

is conclusive upon the parties * * *.” Resendes v. Brown, 966 A.2d 1249, 1255 (R.I.

2009) (quoting In re McBurney Law Services, Inc., 798 A.2d 877, 881-82 (R.I.

2002)). Such a stipulation has the “attributes of a consent order * * * and cannot be

set aside simply because a litigant no longer wants to be bound by its terms,” nor

can it be “set aside without the assent of the parties * * *.” Id. (quoting In re

McBurney Law Services, Inc., 798 A.2d at 882); see also Super. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).

The record clearly reflects that all parties never assented to the vacating of the

Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal. Moreover, plaintiff fails to point to anything in

the record that would support an argument alleging fraud, mutual mistake, or other

extraordinary circumstances that might call for the Stipulated Agreement of

Dismissal being vacated.

9 Likewise, plaintiff’s oral statements at the March 24 hearing in no way constituted compliance with Rule 6(c) and Rule 7(b)(1). Especially noteworthy is plaintiff’s failure to comply with requirements in Rule 6(c) that there be written notice and that it be provided “not later than ten (10) days” before the date of the hearing. - 12 - As previously indicated, this Court has recognized that a trial justice has

“plenary authority to afford relief from interlocutory judgments” and is “free to

vacate her original decision upon concluding that [he or] she may have erred.” Atmed

Treatment Center, Inc., 285 A.3d at 362; see also Renewable Resources, Inc. v. Town

of Westerly, 110 A.3d 1166, 1171 (R.I. 2015); see generally Greene v. Union Mutual

Life Insurance Company of America, 764 F.2d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 1985). At the hearing

on June 20, 2023, the trial justice recognized that she had initially erred in granting

plaintiff’s oral motion and in vacating the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal

without defendants having been provided with sufficient notice and opportunity to

prepare their arguments and objections. She further noted that, without the assent of

all parties, it was improper for her to have set aside the Stipulated Agreement of

Dismissal. The trial justice then stated that, upon balancing the interests of both

parties, she had determined that it would be most equitable to reverse her previous

interlocutory ruling and to enforce the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal. We

discern no reason to disturb these well-grounded rulings of the trial justice. In

addition, the trial justice’s finding that plaintiff did not adequately demonstrate that

she was under duress when agreeing to and signing the Stipulated Agreement of

Dismissal is supported by the record. Lastly, because we deem the trial justice’s

reinstatement of the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal to be proper, we need not

- 13 - reach plaintiff’s arguments concerning the additional interlocutory orders from

which she has sought to appeal.

We also consider it important to state that we appreciate the patience exhibited

by the trial justice throughout the litigation in the Superior Court. The trial justice

conducted herself at all times with admirable decorum, even when she found it

necessary to admonish the plaintiff for her disrespectful attitude towards court

employees. Having said that and being aware of the fact that this case is now in its

eighth year, we would emphasize that “[t]here is nothing more to be said; this case

is over.” Palazzo v. Alves, 944 A.2d 144, 155 (R.I. 2008); see also Arena v. City of

Providence, 919 A.2d 379, 396 (R.I. 2007) (“It is time for this litigation to end.”);

Gunn v. Union Railroad Company, 27 R.I. 320, 336, 62 A. 118, 125 (1905).

V

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the order of the Superior Court.

The record may be returned to that tribunal.

- 14 - STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903

OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case Judith Clinton v. Chad Babcock et al.

No. 2023-310-Appeal. Case Number (WC 17-376)

Date Opinion Filed March 24, 2025

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.

Written By Associate Justice William P. Robinson III

Source of Appeal Washington County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Sarah Taft-Carter

For Plaintiff:

Judith Clinton, pro se Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendants:

Todd J. Romano, Esq. Stephen J. Brouillard, Esq.