Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01928/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01928-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Georgina Abrams, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1928-PHX-FJM

ORDER

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

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

for summary disposition (docs. 93, 95). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-01928-FJM Document 99 Filed 04/03/12 Page 1 of 2
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 -

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

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

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

This action is dismissed with prejudice.

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.

Case 2:11-cv-01928-FJM Document 99 Filed 04/03/12 Page 2 of 2