Abrams v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

Filing 99

ORDER granting defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65, 67, 71, 72, 74, 91, 94). IT IS ORDERED granting defendants' motions for summary disposition (Docs. 93, 95). IT IS ORDERED denying as moot defendant's motion for more definite statement (doc. 68). Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 4/3/12.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Georgina Abrams,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Wells Fargo Bank, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-11-1928-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
16
17

The court has before it 16 motions to dismiss (docs. 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 64,

18

65, 67, 71, 72, 74, 91, 94), a motion for a more definite statement (doc. 68), and 2 motions

19

for summary disposition (docs. 93, 95).

20

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed.

21

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed. R. Civ.

22

P. 12(b)(6), and for insufficient service of process, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4). Plaintiff has

23

failed to respond to any of the motions and the time for doing so has expired. Plaintiff’s

24

failure to respond to the motions may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motions and

25

we may dispose of the case summarily. LRCiv 7.2(i).

26

Plaintiff’s prolix, unintelligible complaint appears to be a collateral attack on state

27

court judgments, which we are without jurisdiction to consider. See Reusser v. Wachovia

28

Bank, 525 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2008); see also D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460

1

U.S. 462, 482-86, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1315-17 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.

2

413, 415-16, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150 (1923). Plaintiff has asserted no federal cause of action and

3

there is no diversity of citizenship. Accordingly, we are without subject matter jurisdiction.

4

This action is dismissed with prejudice.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motions to dismiss (docs. 49, 51, 54,
55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65, 67, 71, 72, 74, 91, 94).
IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motions for summary disposition (docs.
93, 95).
IT IS ORDERED DENYING AS MOOT defendant’s motion for more definite
statement (doc. 68).
DATED this 3rd day of April, 2012.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-