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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property at 919 U.S. Hwy 281, Wichita Falls, Texas, from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025. The policy carried a $309,250.50 deductible for windstorm and/or hail coverage.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property. ProNet confirmed hail impact on April 5, 2025, producing dents and panel separations on the roofing, but found that water intrusion and interior damage predated the storm. Defendant also obtained a third-party contractor bid.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67. Plaintiff contended the estimate and ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property at 919 U.S. Hwy 281, Wichita Falls, Texas, from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025. The policy carried a $309,250.50 deductible for windstorm and/or hail coverage.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property. ProNet confirmed hail impact on April 5, 2025, producing dents and panel separations on the roofing, but found that water intrusion and interior damage predated the storm. Defendant also obtained a third-party contractor bid.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67. Plaintiff contended the estimate and ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67.
1. The Original Petition asserted eight causes of action:
2. anticipatory breach and breach of contract;
3. breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing;
4. deceptive trade practices and unconscionable conduct;
violations of Texas Insurance Code Chapter 542 (Prompt Payment of Claims Act);
5. unfair insurance practices;
6. negligent misrepresentation;...
