Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06494/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06494-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
First Federal Bank
Defendant
Daniel Zarazua Ramos
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL ZARAZUA RAMOS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FIRST FEDERAL BANK,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-06494 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

This pro se action arises out of a lender-debtor dispute but has been bizarrely cast in the

pleading as an admiralty suit involving only “U.S. Vessels.” The complaint is a masterpiece of

gobbledygook. 

On March 13, 2008, the Court heard defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint,

entitled, “Petition for Libel of Review of an Administrative Judgment.” Plaintiff had been

ordered to appear after he failed to file an opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

At the hearing, the Court found that the complaint, which asserted jurisdiction under

admiralty law, was incomprehensible, fraudulent, and frivolous. The complaint stated that “[i]n

this instant action all parties are U.S. VESSELS and fit the legal definition of a U.S. Vessel”

(Compl. ¶ 18). The Court then asked plaintiff more than once whether he was a “ship, vessel,

or boat.” Time and again, plaintiff obstinately refused to answer, repeating that First Federal

Bank never responded to yet another document (outside the complaint) which he served up at

the hearing. 

Case 3:07-cv-06494-WHA Document 19 Filed 03/13/08 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

Plaintiff has a history of filing similar pleadings. On October 25, 2007, he filed a

“Petition for Libel of Review of an Administrative Judgment” against World Savings, which the

Honorable Charles Breyer dismissed with prejudice (Ramos v. World Savings et al., MC 07-

80249 CRB). Judge Breyer had initially dismissed the case with 20 days leave to amend, but

plaintiff never amended the complaint and did not otherwise communicate with the district

court. On December 28, 2007, plaintiff filed the identical “complaint” against World Savings

(Ramos v. World Savings et al., C 07-6495 WHA). These complaints all seem to have been

pulled off the same Internet website purporting to eliminate debts.

This action has all the hallmarks of a debt-elimination Internet scam. Defense counsel

was singularly unhelpful in illuminating what the bank has done to report this possible

fraudulent scheme. As a federally-regulated bank, defendant has the duty to report misconduct

to the proper federal regulatory authorities.

Because the complaint is incomprehensible and frivolous, it is hereby DISMISSED with

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This order does not

address the validity of the loan between plaintiff and First Federal Bank. At the hearing, the

Court cautioned Mr. Ramos against filing any more such frivolous admiralty actions. The clerk

shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-06494-WHA Document 19 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 2