PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT COURT PUTS AN END TO 15 YEARS OF LITIGATION DENYING BORROWER’S REQUEST TO AMEND PLEADINGS

Stephanie A. Walczak, Esq.
50 minutes ago
3 min read

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered an order dismissing claims brought by mortgagor/debtor, Susan M. Boltz-Rubenstein (“Boltz”), against Bank of America and its attorneys for alleged fraud stemming from conduct at court-ordered mediation. Boltz-Rubinstein v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 25-CV-6533, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95577 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2026). The court provided a detailed history of litigation which started in 2010 when Boltz filed for bankruptcy protection after defaulting on her mortgage and ostensibly other debts.i

In 2016 Boltz’s debts were discharged pursuant to her Chapter 13 bankruptcy; however, Boltz had brought several claims against various creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings, including Bank of America.ii Ultimately, all those claims were resolved in favor of the creditors and Boltz lost a series of appeals that she filed fighting the adverse rulings. Unfortunately, those losses did not discourage Boltz who filed yet another lawsuit against Bank of America, and others, in 2022.

In the 2022 lawsuit Boltz raised violations of RICOiii sought declaratory relief and to quiet title against many of the same defendants based on the same conduct she complained of in her prior actions. The district court judge dismissed the complaint “citing res judicata and describing the 2022 Lawsuit as ‘reclothed claims that were previously dismissed by the bankruptcy court, this court, and the third circuit.’ "iv

Still undeterred by her losses, Boltz filed yet another lawsuit against Bank of America, and others (“the Defendants”), in November 2025 claiming in pertinent part that the Defendants committed fraud on the court by sending a “serial perjurer” to mediation instead of a representative authorized to settle the matter.v The Defendants moved to dismiss the 2025 lawsuit and established each of the three elements required for Boltz’s claims to be barred by res judicata. vi

Namely, the Defendants argued that the 2022 lawsuit was based on the same cause of action against the same defendants and resulted in a final judgment on the merits.vii The district court summarily concluded two of the three elements for res judicata were met and then evaluated whether the 2025 lawsuit was based on “the same cause of action.”viii In its analysis the court explained that the complaint allegations need not be identical to satisfy the “same cause of action” element of res judicata.ix The court noted that the purpose of the doctrine was to force a plaintiff to present all claims arising out of the same occurrence in a single suit.x

Concluding that Boltz’s RICO claims in the 2022 lawsuit stemmed from alleged conduct at the court-ordered mediation, both lawsuits were based on the same cause of action. The Court also noted that amendment would be futile because the alleged fraud occurred in 2021, so the two-year statute of limitations had already run.xi The court dismissed the 2025 lawsuit with prejudice noting Boltz had ample opportunity to litigate her claims. Hopefully, this final adverse determination will put an end to Boltz’s litigious streak, but only time will tell.

In a hurry? Click here for the key points.

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered an order dismissing claims brought by mortgagor/debtor, Susan M. Boltz-Rubenstein (“Boltz”), against Bank of America and its attorneys for alleged fraud stemming from conduct at court-ordered mediation. Boltz-Rubinstein v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 25-CV-6533, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95577 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2026).
Boltz litigated a series of claims against Bank of America and others starting in 2010 and continuing into 2025 when Boltz filed another lawsuit claiming Bank of America engaged in fraud on the court by sending a “serial perjurer” to mediation instead of a representative authorized to settle the matter.
The district court concluded the recent lawsuit was duplicative of prior claims against Bank of America and dismissed Boltz’s complaint based on res judicata. The Court also noted that the dismissal was with prejudice because amendment would be futile since the alleged fraud occurred in 2021, and the two-year statute of limitations had already run.

i Boltz-Rubinstein, at *2-4.

ii Boltz-Rubinstein, at *4-5. References to this case are to this citation until indicated

otherwise.

iii RICO is an acronym for “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act” and is

codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq.

iv Boltz-Rubinstein, at *6.

v Boltz-Rubinstein, at *9-10, 12.

vi Boltz-Rubinstein, at *13-14.

vii Boltz-Rubinstein, at *13.

viii Boltz-Rubinstein, at *15-17.

ix Boltz-Rubinstein, at *16-17.

x Boltz-Rubinstein, at *16.