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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
