Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Treseder v. Bank of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 25, 2009

SCOTT STERLING TRESEDER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants' motion to dismiss, filed June 22, 2009, was taken under submission without a hearing. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition,*fn1 the court issues the following findings and recommendations.

In this action, plaintiff challenges a loan for $417,000 borrowed from Bank of America, secured by a deed of trust on his home, alleging that the United States has been in bankruptcy since 1933, Federal Reserve notes have no intrinsic value, and that plaintiff was not loaned anything of worth. Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Defendants' motion is well taken.

The theory underlying plaintiff's claims is untenable, frivolous and must be rejected outright.*fn2 See United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984) (theory that federal reserve notes are not valid currency is frivolous); Foret v. Wilson, 725 F.2d 254, 254-55 (5th Cir. 1984) (argument, that gold and silver is the only legal tender in United States, is hopeless and frivolous); see also United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224, 229 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (rejecting as irrational plaintiff's attack on legitimacy of federal reserve notes); Sneed v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2007 WL 1851674, *3 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2007); Tuttle v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2008 WL 4919263, *3-4 (D. Utah Nov. 17, 2008); Carrington v. Fed'l Nat'l Mortgage Assoc., 2005 WL 3216226, *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 29, 2005).

Plaintiff's claim under RICO is similarly deficient in that the predicate acts of racketeering activity simply do not exist. The activity underlying plaintiff's claims was a simple loan transaction. This is not the kind of unlawful activity contemplated by the Civil RICO Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961. It is readily apparent that amendment in this case would be futile. The complaint should therefore be dismissed with prejudice.

As RICO is the sole basis for federal jurisdiction, this court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims based on state law, and these claims should also be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants' motion to dismiss (dkt. #7), be granted with prejudice;

2. This action be dismissed with prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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