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.
Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer
Who’s on First to Get Life Insurance Proceeds
Post 5184
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyxQfnUz and at https://lnkd.in/gAd3wqWP, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gRthzSnT; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer
In Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Selena Sanchez, et al, No. 2:24-cv-03278-TLN-CSK, United States District Court, E.D. California (September 3, 2025) the USDC applied interpleader law.
Case Overview
This case involves an interpleader action brought by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Plaintiff-in-Interpleader) against Selena Sanchez and other defendants (Defendants-in-Interpleader).
Key Points
Plaintiff-in-Interpleader’s Application:
The Plaintiff-in-Interpleader...
A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182
It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.
Case Background:
This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...
A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182
It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.
Case Background:
This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...
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 ...
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 and became a consultant and expert witness for lawyers representing insurers and lawyers ...
APPRAISAL AWARD SETS AMOUNT OF DAMAGES RECOVERED FROM INSURER
Post 5180
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence
Evidence Required to Prove Breach of Contract
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evidence-required-prove-breach-contract-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-rfelc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence
In Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes v. Homeowners Of America Insurance Company, No. 01-23-00844-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (August 26, 2025) Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes filed a claim under their homeowner’s insurance policy with Homeowners of ...
