Sepehry-Fard v. Lee

Background

Fareed Sepehry-Fard, proceeding without a lawyer, sought permission to proceed without paying court filing fees. The court found that his application showed he could not pay those fees. The court had previously granted in part and denied in part his fee-waiver application: his civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputy H. Lee, Deputy McRoberts, and Sheriff Laurie Smith could proceed, while his claims against the bank defendants failed to state a claim.

Sepehry-Fard filed a first amended complaint. The court therefore reviewed whether the amended complaint stated claims against Amar R. Patel, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Jan T. Chilton, Jospeh W. Guzzetta, Adam N. Barasch, Bernard J. Kornberg, and Serverson & Werson, APC. The court also addressed Sepehry-Fard’s request that it enforce what he called a “non-judicial judgment” for $300 million. The court stated that his notarized affidavit was not equivalent to a court judgment and did not automatically entitle him to the requested relief.

Screening standards

A complaint filed by someone proceeding without paying filing fees must be reviewed and dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that type of relief. A claim fails to state a claim when the complaint does not provide enough factual matter to make the requested relief plausible.

Claims involving the property and mortgages

The court noted that Sepehry-Fard had filed at least five earlier lawsuits involving the property at issue, 12309 Saratoga Creek Dr., and the mortgages attached to it. Without repeating the prior case captions, the opinion identified related proceedings by case numbers including 18-cv-00862-EJD, 14-cv-03218-LHK, 13-cv-4535-EJD, and 12-cv-00871-EJD. The court concluded that the validity of the mortgages had been extensively litigated and that claim-preclusion rules barred Sepehry-Fard from proceeding with claims concerning that property or its mortgages.

The court also found that Sepehry-Fard’s allegations that Patel and Nationstar had been “financing the unlawful racket and conduct” did not identify specific unlawful actions by either defendant. The court dismissed Patel and Nationstar from the action without leave to amend.

Conspiracy allegations

The amended complaint also asserted conspiracy allegations against Chilton, Guzzetta, Barasch, Kornberg, and Serverson & Werson, APC. The court found that Sepehry-Fard did not provide details explaining how those defendants allegedly conspired against him. Because the amended complaint did not add factual allegations supporting the conspiracy claim, the court dismissed those bank defendants from the action without leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Sepehry-Fard’s fee-waiver application. It dismissed the bank defendants from the action without leave to amend. It directed the U.S. Marshal to serve the first amended complaint on the sheriff defendants, whose claims the court had previously allowed to proceed. The court again advised Sepehry-Fard to seek legal representation or advice.