Ramirez v. Swift

Background

Elias Torres Ramirez filed this case against Taylor Alison Swift, Travis Michael Kelce, and “Theresa Tommasi and Val.” Ramirez alleged that he and Swift were married but that Swift was not fulfilling their “Sacred Relationship” because of interference by Kelce and others. He sought to reunite with Swift immediately, obtain control over Swift’s assets, and have certain individuals put to death.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it may dismiss a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) when the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The court said Ramirez could not possibly obtain relief because his claims were “fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” It described the allegations as incredible and sometimes incomprehensible and said that some requested relief—such as forcing Swift to be in a relationship with Ramirez—was plainly unavailable.

The court also said Ramirez’s claims appeared barred by claim preclusion, a rule that prevents a party from bringing the same claims again after an earlier case involving the same parties and issues ended in a final judgment on the merits. The court referred to an earlier related proceeding, No. 24-cv-02728-KAW (N.D. Cal.), in which the complaint was dismissed with prejudice because the factual allegations were plainly frivolous. The court concluded that the requirements for claim preclusion were satisfied.

Order

The court ordered Ramirez to show cause—meaning to explain—by December 2, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order stated that failing to respond by the deadline could result in reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It also vacated the case-management conference scheduled for November 25, 2024.