Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00835/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00835-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

RENE-FABRICIO: DIAZ,

JUAN-JOSE: VADO,

Sramineus Homo, US Vessel

Libellant,

 v.

CITI BANK, US Vessel 

DOES, ROES, and MOES 1-100, et al.,

US Vessel sand

Libellees, ___________________________________

RENE-FABRICIO: DIAZ

JUAN-JOSE: VADO

Lien Holders of the Vessel, the Real Party

In Interest, Lawful Man

Injured Third Party Intervenor/ Petitioner/

Libellant,

 v.

CITI BANK, U.S. Vessel, 

DOES, ROES, and MOES 1-100, et al.,

US VESSELS

INDIVIDUALLY AND SEVERALLY

Third Party Defendants/Libellees

 /

No. C-08-0835 MMC

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

By order filed February 12, 2008, the Court directed Rene-Fabricio Diaz and JuanJose Vado (collectively, “petitioners”) to show cause, no later than February 29, 2008, why

Case 3:08-cv-00835-MMC Document 8 Filed 03/11/08 Page 1 of 3
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

the instant “Petition for Libel of Review of an Administrative Judgment” should not be

dismissed in light of petitioners’ having failed to allege any facts that could state a claim

under either state or federal law, and having failed to allege the existence of an

administrative decision.

On February 29, 2008, petitioners filed three documents titled, respectively, “Notice

of Appointment of Fiduciary Trustee,” “Notice of Acceptance of Oath of Office and Bond,”

and “Memorandum of More Definitative [sic] Statement.” By the first of said documents,

petitioners purport to appoint the undersigned as “fiduciary trustee for the purpose of using

[petitioners’] exemption to settle and close any outstanding debt owed CITI BANK.” (See

Notice of Apptmt. of Fiduc. Trustee at 2.) In the second document, petitioners state they

“formally accept the Oath of Office and Bond” of the undersigned. (See Notice of

Acceptance of Oath of Office and Bond at 2.) In the third document, petitioners assert

“Libellees have failed to ask for a more definitive statement and are in agreement with

libelants,” (see Memorandum at 2), and seek a default judgment against CITI BANK, (see

id. at 3). In said third document, petitioners also assert “Libellees sent a presentment to

[petitioners] demanding payment of a sum certain,” (see id. at 2), and further assert, in

conclusory fashion, they “have been the victims of dishonorable predatory lending

practices, or at the least, breach of agreement,” (see id. at 3). Petitioners fail, however, to

state the facts describing such “presentment” or to support their assertion of breach, nor do

petitioners identify the particular law on which they rely to support their assertion of

unlawful lending practices. In sum, in none of the documents do petitioners state facts that

would support a cognizable claim for relief. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 

To the extent petitioners seek to cure the deficiencies noted above, they may do so by 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-00835-MMC Document 8 Filed 03/11/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

filing an amended complaint. Any such amended complaint shall be filed no later than April

7, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00835-MMC Document 8 Filed 03/11/08 Page 3 of 3