Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marie Minichino, and As Trustee of Gaetano Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank

August 3, 2012

MARIE MINICHINO, AND AS TRUSTEE OF GAETANO TRUST, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ALL AGENTS & OFFICERS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CAPACITIES;
MANANA AND DAVID SUTIDZE;
WILLIAM AND JOANN CATERINA; SHAKA PIZZA;
COLDWELL BANKER, PREVIEWS INT.;
SHORE TO SHORE REALTY, AND INC.; AKA TAGORA, AKA MARTINEZ; AL IMAMURA, PRESIDENT AND PRINCIPAL BROKER, SHORE TO SHORE REALTY;
ROBERT CELLA, BROKER; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE, ISLAND;
YVIENNE PETTERSON; WINDEMERE REAL ESTATE CO.;
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE;
YURIKO SUGAMURA; BENDET, FIDELL, SAKAI, LEE LAW CORPORATION;
DOES 1-50, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AND PRIVATE CAPACITIES; AND
ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN ENTITIES, ALL JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Oki Mollway Chief United States District Judge

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION.

On June 10, 2011, Plaintiff Marie Minichino, proceeding pro se, filed what she called a "Verified Criminal Complaint." See ECF No. 1. On June 15, 2011, Minichino filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. See ECF No. 5.

On June 20, 2011, the court issued an "Order Dismissing Case; Order Denying as Moot Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis." See ECF No. 6. The court dismissed the "Verified Criminal Complaint" because Minichino had no private right to proceed with what were criminal claims of mail and wire fraud. Id. The other causes of action asserted in the "Verified Criminal Complaint" appeared to arise under state law, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. Minichino was given leave to file an Amended Complaint no later than July 20, 2011. Id.

On July 20, 2011, Minchino filed an "Amended & Verified Complaint for Damage." See ECF No. 7. On July 21, 2011, Minichino filed another "Amended & Verified Complaint for Damage." See ECF No. 8. On August 3, 2011, Minichino filed another Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. See ECF No. 10.

On August 5, 2011, the Court ordered Minichino to inform the court which document was to serve as her Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 13.

On August 15, 2011, Minichino filed another document titled "Amended Verified Criminal Complaint." See ECF No. 15.

On August 18, 2011, the court deemed the filing of August 15, 2012, to be Minichino's Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 16. The court then dismissed the Amended Complaint, again ruling that Minichino had no private right to bring criminal claims of wire and bank fraud. Id. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Amended Complaint. Id. The court gave Minichino leave to file a Second Amended Complaint no later than September 19, 2011. Id. The court warned Minichino that, "if she files a Second Amended Complaint that similarly fails to allege an adequate basis for this court's jurisdiction, this action may be subject to dismissal with prejudice." Id. at 2.

On September 15, 2011, Minichino filed a "Second Amended & Verified Complaint for Damage." See ECF No. 20. This document is almost identical to the complaints Minichino filed in July 2011. That same day, Minichino filed another Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. See ECF No. 19. That Application was denied because Minichino had an annual income of $30,000. See ECF No. 22.

On October 3, 2011, Minichino paid the applicable filing fee. See ECF No. 28.

On June 8, 2012, Defendant Manana Sutidze filed a motion to dismiss the "Second Amended & Verified Complaint for Damage." See ECF No. 64. Minichino opposed this motion in a filing on July 19, 2012. See ECF No. 66. A Reply memorandum was filed on July 23, 2012. See ECF No. 68.

Minichino's "Second Amended & Verified Complaint" asserts federal question jurisdiction. However, Minichino alleges no facts supporting a federal claim. Accordingly, the court dismisses the federal claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

The court denies without prejudice Sutidze's request for attorney's fees and costs on the present record.

II. BACKGROUND.

Minichino's "Second Amended & Verified Complaint" is largely incomprehensible. The court gleans the following from it.

Minichino alleges that she used to live at a Luakaha Circle address and then at a Lanihou Place address. See "Second Amended & Verified Complaint" ¶ 8. Minichino alleges that, in March 2009, Manana and David Sutidze fraudulently transferred these properties from the "Gaetano Trust" to Manana Sutidze. Id.

¶ 23. It appears that Minichino is claiming to have been a trustee of the "Gaetano Trust." See id. ¶ 26. Minichino names as Defendants Yvienne Petterson and Coldwell Banker Realty; they apparently listed the property for sale. Minichino additionally sues First American Title, an escrow company. See id. ¶ 27.

Minichino then alleges that Wells Fargo Bank filed an improper foreclosure action. See id. ¶ 28. It appears that Minichino may have received a $677,000 loan from Wells Fargo.

See id. ¶ 36. Minichino alleges that an attorney, Yuriko Sugimura, committed fraud on the state court when she sought to evict Minichino on behalf of her client, an unknown Defendant. See id. ¶ 31. Minichino says that the fraudulent court documents caused her to lose her property "under a color of law." Id. ¶ 32. In other words, for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1986, Minichino is saying that Defendants acted "under color of law" because they used state and federal laws in a court action. See id. ¶¶ 72-73, 92.

Minichino alleges that Wells Fargo did not properly disclose the loan costs, but does not allege facts supporting her allegation that the disclosure she received "was a blatant misrepresentation, and intentional lie, and a violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act." Id. ¶ 46(d).

Minichino alleges that an unidentified "debt collector" violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.