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.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
