Your case is unique, but you are not alone.
About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.
Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?
How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?
AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.
Full Analytics Report
- Complete case narrative
- Judge details and rulings
- Case disposition and outcome
- All docket entries
- Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Case Information
Filed
2025-08-04
Status
Open
Type
E Filed Eqa Equitable Action Involving Any Right, Title Or Interest In Land, G.l. Chapter 185, 1
Docket
11 entries
Parties
Plaintiff
Peterson, Trevor J
Defendant
Penny Mac Loan Services Llc|Brock And Scott Pllc
Docket Entries
- and Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 462629 Date: 08/04/2025
- and Court surcharge Receipt: 462629 Date: 08/04/2025
- ase assigned to the Average Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04.
- niform Counsel Certificate for Civil Cases filed by Plaintiff.
- erified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed.
- xhibit A of Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed.
- xhibit B of Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary InjunctionAffidavit, filed.
- xhibit C of Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed.
- ummons and Hearing Notice issued on Application for Preliminary Injunction. Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R. Event: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Date: 08/06/2025 Time: 11:00 AM VIA ZOOM. Counsel notified via email.
- vent Resulted: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction scheduled on: 08/06/2025 11:00 AM Has been: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction held via videoconference. Plaintiff Trevor Peterson appeared pro so. Defendants did not appear, as neither defendant was served. Court is in receipt of Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Exhibit A of Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Exhibit B of Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Affidavit, and Exhibit C of Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Although Sessions Clerk Jennifer Noonan sent two summonses to plaintiff on Monday August 4, 2025, by email, plaintiff did not effectuate service on either defendant. Accordingly, court heard the motion for emergency preliminary injunction on an ex parte basis in light of the exigent circumstances, since plaintiff reports that a foreclosure sale of his property located at 26A Cranberry Circle, Carver (the "Property") is scheduled for tomorrow, August 7, 2025. By way of background, plaintiff explained that he seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant PennyMac Loan Services LLC and defendant Brock and Scott PLLC from proceeding with a foreclosure auction of the Property. Court encouraged plaintiff to retain counsel and advised as to what being a pro se party entails, including that the same rules of evidence and procedure apply to both represented and pro se litigants, and that the court cannot provide any legal assistance or advice. Court also advised him of the limited assistance representation ("LAR") program, with Sessions Clerk Jennifer Noonan to provide him with LAR information. Following argument, for the reasons stated on the record and as follows court DENIED the ex parte motion for temporary injunctive relief. The familiar standard for consideration of a request for preliminary injunctive relief is as follows: "when asked to grant a preliminary injunction, the judge initially evaluates in combination the moving party's claim of injury and chance of success on the merits. If the judge is convinced that failure to issue the injunction would subject the moving party to a substantial risk of irreparable harm, the judge must then balance this risk against any similar risk of irreparable harm which granting the injunction would create for the opposing party. What matters as to each party is not the raw amount of irreparable harm the party might conceivably suffer, but rather the risk of such harm in light of the party's chance of success on the merits. Only where the balance between these risks cuts in favor of the moving party may a preliminary injunction properly issue." Packaging Industries Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 617 (1980). I conclude that plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. In plaintiff's brief and conclusory 3-page Verified Complaint (and exhibits appended thereto), which does double-duty as a motion for Emergency TRO & Preliminary Injunction, he alleges that the lender defrauded him by failing to disclose a purported right to execute the mortgage and loan documents without recourse and further that the lender was obligated to consider a purported right to initiate a so-called novation of the mortgage to modify the loan instruments to a "non-recourse" status. I conclude that these allegations are speculative and unsupported by specific factual allegations. Plaintiff has provided neither legal authority or factual support for these claims of alleged fraud. In the absence of authority for these theories or supporting factual allegations, I conclude that plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim against the defendants. Therefore, the motion is denied. Plaintiff to serve each of the defendants with the summons and Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Exhibit A of Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Exhibit B of Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Affidavit, and Exhibit C of Verified Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Further, the complaint appears to fail state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Mass. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6). Court to issue a show cause order as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hon. Diane R. Rubin, Presiding Pro Se Plaintiff notified via email.
- rder To Show Case issued, a response is due no later than September 15, 2025. Copy of Order mailed to Plaintiff: Trevor J. Peterson via electronic mail. Judge: Rubin, Hon. Diane R.
Get Free Case Details
Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.
By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.
Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.
Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In
