Woodruff v. De Facto Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP

Background

Kevin Woodruff, Tanya Stutson, and Wanag Tahatan-Bey, proceeding without lawyers, filed a document titled “Trial by Affidavit.” Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP, which the plaintiffs incorrectly named as “De Facto Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP,” moved to dismiss or, alternatively, requested a more definite statement.

The filing concerned the alleged “pillaging” of the plaintiffs’ estate and real property at 2013 Mt. Hamilton Dr. in Antioch, California. It contained 16 “points,” some concerning the law firm and its attorneys and others apparently concerning the property. The filing sought $250,000 for each alleged violation, $100 million for restraint of trade, $100 million for monopolizing trade, and a deed of reconveyance for the property. It did not include allegations concerning the other named defendants.

The court also described several earlier civil and bankruptcy proceedings involving the same foreclosure dispute. In one earlier proceeding, claims involving the law firm were dismissed with prejudice on grounds including lack of standing, judicial estoppel, and failure to state a claim. The court stated that the plaintiffs had also raised and lost restraint-of-trade, monopolization, and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims in that earlier proceeding.

Court’s analysis

The court applied Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers liberally, such filings still must give the defendant notice of what it allegedly did wrong.

The court concluded that the affidavit, even if treated as a complaint, did not present any understandable claim for relief or factual allegations. Without relying on the earlier case, the court said that even basic facts about the plaintiffs’ dealings with the law firm could not be determined. The filing included unsupported allegations, such as the assertion that the law firm and its attorneys were “unregistered foreign agents” who could not practice law, and cited no legal authority supporting those assertions. The court characterized the action as frivolous.

The court further concluded that amendment would not cure the defects. The plaintiffs identified no new facts or claims in their opposition to the motion. Because the same possible claims had been raised and rejected previously, and because the plaintiffs had repeatedly failed to state a claim across several proceedings, the court denied leave to amend. The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ response was signed only by Tahatan-Bey, even though Woodruff and Stutson were also plaintiffs; under the applicable rules, the response was ineffective as to them.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the action in its entirety without leave to amend. It ordered the clerk to close the file and terminate any pending matters. The order was issued by Judge Saundra Armstrong, with the signature line indicating that Richard Seeborg signed for her.