Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00605/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00605-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AOM Group, LLC, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Provident Funding Associates L.P., et al.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-605-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff AOM Group LLC, individual and as

Trustee of Stemar Land Trust, Steven J. Von Prisk and Marisssa L. Von Prisk, beneficiaries’

(“the AOM Group”) Emergency Motion for Remand, (Doc. 10), and AOM Group’s Motion

for Leave to Amend Complaint. (Doc. 27). After reviewing the record and determining oral

argument unnecessary, the Court issues the following Order. 

Under the circumstances of this case, amendment may only occur by “leave of the

court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice

so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Court’s apply Rule 15(a) with “extreme liberality.”

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). Meaning,

there is generally a strong presumption in favor of granting a party leave to amend. See id.

at 1052. In determining the propriety of a motion for leave to amend, courts consider five

factors. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). These

Case 2:10-cv-00605-MHM Document 36 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

factors include (1) bad faith on the part of the moving party; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice

to the non-moving party; (4) whether the moving party has previously amended his

complaint; and (5) the apparent futility of any proposed amendment. DCD Programs, Ltd.

V. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that this

“determination should generally be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the

motion.” Griggs v. Pace Amer. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 

After carefully reviewing all relevant pleadings in this matter, the Court is of the firm

opinion that Plaintiff AOM Group lacks the requisite standing needed to pursue its claims

against all of the Defendants, and as such, any attempt to amend its Complaint would be

futile. Moreover, because the AOM Group does not possess a cognizable legal interest in the

subject matter of the litigation, dismissal of its Complaint is required. Whether a party has

standing under Article III of the Constitution is a “threshold jurisdictional question” that a

court must decide before it may consider the merits. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't,

523 U.S. 83, 102 (1998). “[S]tanding is an essential and unchanging part of the

case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.

555, 560 (1992). The party seeking jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing.

Id. at 561. “Since [the elements of standing] are not mere pleading requirements but rather

an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, each element must be supported in the same way

as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof.” Id. Because federal

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the presumption is that they lack jurisdiction unless

the party asserting jurisdiction establishes it. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). At an “irreducible constitutional minimum,” standing requires the

party asserting the existence of federal court jurisdiction to establish three elements: (1) an

injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent; (2) causation;

and (3) a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the injury. Lujan, 504 U.S. at

560-61. According to the Complaint, the AOM Group had no involvement whatsoever in

the lending process. It was Steven J. Von Prisk and Marisssa L. Von Prisk who took entered

into a loan on the property in what appears to be their individual capacity, and the allegations

Case 2:10-cv-00605-MHM Document 36 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court notes that this case is but one in a series of lawsuits filed by the AOM

Group, who purport to act as trustee for a series of trusts formed by individuals who have

defaulted on home loans secured by a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust. See AOM Group,

LLC v. Mortgagit, Inc., 2:09-cv-02639-SRB; AOM Group, LLC v. Loancity,

2:10-cv-00088-GMS; AOM Group LLC v. Costal Capital Corp., 2:10-cv-00094-SRB; AOM

Group, LLC v. DHI Mortgage Company, Ltd. ,2:10-cv-00208-GMS; AOM Group, LLC v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2:10-cv-00514-GMS; AOM Group, LLC, v. Irwin Mortgage

Corp., 2:10-cv-00605-MHM; AOM Group, LLC v. Downey Savings and Loan Association,

F.A., 2:10-cv-00830-MHM; AOM Group, LLC v. Fidelity Mortgage Financial,

2:10-cv-00972-DGC; AOM Group, LLC v. DHI Mortgage Company, Ltd.,

2:10-cv-01043-JAT. Most of the AOM Group’s cases were filed between the months of

January and March 2010, and seven out of the nine lawsuits assigned to other Judges in this

District have been dismissed. As to the two remaining open cases before other Judges: in

AOM Group, LLC v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 10-cv-00514-GMS, Judge Snow has

issued a pending order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for the AOM

Group’s failure of to comply with a court order, 10-cv-00514-GMS, Doc. 34, and in AOM

Group LLC v. Costal Capital Corp., 2:10-cv-00094-SRB, Judge Bolton dismissed the AOM

Group’s claims against one of the defendants on res judicata grounds, while also sanctioning

the AOM Group and its counsel, Mr. Richard Clark, for asserting claims that were patently

frivolous. See 2:10-cv-00094-SRB, Doc. 32. It appears, after reviewing the pleadings in this

case and other cases that the AOM Group operates as nothing more than a complex ruse

designed to frustrate and delay otherwise lawful non-judicial foreclosures in the State of

Arizona. 

- 3 -

in the Complaint all stem from that financing, and the Von Prisks are not parties to this

lawsuit in that capacity.1

 Because the Plaintiff AOM Group are strangers to the Von Prisks’

loan, they lack the jurisdiction to litigate claims on their behalf, and dismissal is required.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff AOM Group LLC, individual and as

Trustee of Stemar Land Trust, Steven J. Von Prisk and Marisssa L. Von Prisk, beneficiaries’

(“the AOM Group”) Emergency Motion for Remand. (Doc. 10)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying AOM Group’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Complaint. (Doc. 27).

/ / / 

Case 2:10-cv-00605-MHM Document 36 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to close this case and enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 25th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00605-MHM Document 36 Filed 08/25/10 Page 4 of 4