Act as Your Own Lawyer and Failure is Almost Certain
No Suit Can be Maintained if Claims are Facially Implausible
Post 5152
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gJsqpbsj and at https://lnkd.in/gJsqpbsj, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Gabaryaahla Israel and Akiva Israel, Beneficiaries v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., No. CIV-24-1255-D, United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma (July 11, 2025) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Moved to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Fraud, Quiet Title, Injunctive Relief, Breach of Contract, Declaratory Judgment, Damages, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Violations, and Trover and Midfirst Bank’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs, who are self-represented, failed to respond to the motions to dismiss within 21 days as required by LCvR7.1(g) (establishing a 21-day deadline, and noting that any motion that is not opposed within 21 days may, in the discretion of the court, be deemed confessed.
BACKGROUND:
The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants alleging various claims such as fraud, trover, unjust enrichment, RICO violations, and violations of consumer protection statutes including the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. They sought to enjoin a foreclosure action proceeding in Canadian County District Court, provide declaratory relief for fraudulent mortgage assignments, and award damages.
KEY ALLEGATIONS:
Securitization and Assignment:
Plaintiffs allege that the loan was securitized and assigned to MidFirst Bank, releasing them from their obligations .
Insurance Claim Payout:
Plaintiffs claim that the defendants received an insurance claim payout covering the value of the property but failed to disclose it.
COURT’S ANALYSIS:
The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were facially implausible and failed to meet the pleading standards for fraud. The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ complaint did not comply with the requirements of Rules 8(a) and 9(b).
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
In its motion Midfirst argued the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant the Rooker-Feldman doctrine that precludes lower federal courts from effectively exercising appellate jurisdiction over claims actually decided by a state court and claims inextricably intertwined with a prior state-court judgment.
Standard of Decision
A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The pleading standard for fraud is, however, higher. A party alleging fraud must state with particularity the circumstances constituting the fraud.
Although a pro se party’s pleadings must be liberally construed, the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.
The Court found Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ theory that the loan was paid off via securitization is therefore facially implausible. Pro se status does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.
A judgment has already been entered in a foreclosure action in Canadian County District Court between many, but not all, of the same parties.
CONCLUSION
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety without prejudice and without leave to amend.
ZALMA OPINION
It is almost guaranteed that when a plaintiff represents his or her self and fails to comply with court rules the pro se plaintiff will lose. In this case the plaintiffs failed to represent their own interest, presented a inept complaint that exceeded the ability to sue in federal court, and lost their suit wasting the time of the court and the funds of the defendants to defend the spurious suit.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Intentionally Shooting a Woman With A Rifle is Murder
Post 5196
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog and more than 5150 posts.
You Plead Guilty You Must Accept the Sentence
In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Mark D. Redfield, No. 20 WDA 2025, No. J-S24010-25, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (September 19, 2025) the appellate court reviewed the case of Mark D. Redfield, who pleaded guilty to third-degree murder for killing April Dunkle with malice using a rifle.
Affirmation of Sentence:
The sentencing court’s judgment was affirmed, and jurisdiction was relinquished, concluding no abuse of discretion occurred.
Reasonable Inference on Trigger Pulling:
The sentencing court reasonably inferred from the guilty plea facts that the appellant pulled the trigger causing the victim’s death, an inference supported by the record and consistent with the plea.
Guilty Plea Facts:
The appellant admitted during the plea hearing...
The Judicial Proceedings Privilege
Post 5196
Posted on September 25, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at
Judicial Proceeding Privilege Limits Litigation
In David Camp, and Laura Beth Waller v. Professional Employee Services, d/b/a Insurance Branch, and Brendan Cassity, CIVIL No. 24-3568 (RJL), United States District Court, District of Columbia (September 22, 2025) a defamation lawsuit filed by David Camp and Laura Beth Waller against Insurance Branch and Brendon Cassity alleging libel based on statements made in a letter accusing them of mishandling funds and demanding refunds and investigations.
The court examined whether the judicial proceedings privilege applieD to bar the defamation claims.
Case background:
Plaintiffs Camp and Waller, executives of NOSSCR and its Foundation, sued defendants Insurance Branch and Cassity over a letter alleging financial misconduct and demanding refunds and audits. The letter ...
Misrepresentation or Concealment of a Material Fact Supports Rescission
Post 5195
Don’t Lie to Your Insurance Company
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v6zefq8-untrue-application-for-insurance-voids-policy.html and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Imani Page v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company, No. 370765, Court of Appeals of Michigan (September 22, 2025) because defendant successfully established fraud in the procurement, and requested rescission, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant was entitled to rescind the policy and declare it void ab initio.
FACTS
Plaintiff's Application:
Plaintiff applied for an insurance policy with the defendant, indicating that the primary use of her SUV would be for "Pleasure/Personal" purposes.
Misrepresentation:
Plaintiff misrepresented that she would not use the SUV for food delivery, but records show she was compensated for delivering food.
Accident:
Plaintiff's SUV was involved in an accident on August ...
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
Post 5185
Posted on September 8, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gePN7rjm and at https://lnkd.in/gzPwr-9q
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers.
The Dishonest Chiropractor/Physician
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
See the full video at and at
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
How Elderly Doctors Fund their ...
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
Post 5185
Posted on September 8, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gePN7rjm and at https://lnkd.in/gzPwr-9q
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers.
The Dishonest Chiropractor/Physician
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
See the full video at and at
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
How Elderly Doctors Fund their ...
Barry Zalma: Insurance Claims Expert Witness
Posted on September 3, 2025 by Barry Zalma
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.
On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive ...
