Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05901/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05901-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HILDA RAMOS VILLALPANDO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-5901 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, or alternatively for a more definite statement, is

scheduled for a hearing on March 14, 2008. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines

that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. As set

forth below, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion (Docket No. 7), and GRANTS plaintiff leave to

amend the complaint.

On November 21, 2007, plaintiff filed a “Petition for Libel of Review of an Administrative

Judgment.” Plaintiff’s petition states, among other things, that she seeks review of a foreign judgment

and that this case involves “a constitutional matter involving a man on the land complaining about theft

and kidnap.” Plaintiff has attached numerous documents to his petition, including a “conditional

acceptance,” a “letter rogatory,” and several affidavits. Plaintiff states that “all parties are U.S. Vessels”

and that the Public Vessels Act applies to this case. The petition also states that the complaint is brought

under admiralty law. Plaintiff has also attached to the petition an “Accounting and True Bill” which

seeks over 40 million dollars in damages.

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff did not

file a timely opposition, but did file a “memorandum or more definitive statement” which does not

Case 3:07-cv-05901-SI Document 17 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

address defendants’ arguments. Plaintiff’s memorandum states that she has been the “victim of

dishonorable predatory lending practices, or at the very least, breach of agreement.” 

After review of plaintiff’s voluminous and largely unintelligible filings, the Court agrees that

plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The Court cannot determine the

factual or legal bases for plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000). If plaintiff wishes to

file an amended complaint, the complaint shall (1) state the basis for federal jurisdiction; (2) specifically

identify the claims that plaintiff is asserting (for example, if plaintiff is suing under a federal or state

statute, the complaint shall identify that statute); (3) state, as clearly as possible, the facts giving rise to

the complaint, including the dates upon which the events occurred; and (4) state the relief that plaintiff

seeks. Any amended complaint must be filed by March 24, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05901-SI Document 17 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2