Belleci v. Mroczek
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:21-cv-09630
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Belleci v. Mroczek, Judge Seeborg granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Belleci’s foreclosure complaint, allowing amendment by July 29, 2022.
Marisa Ann Belleci’s wrongful-foreclosure action was dismissed, subject to her stated opportunity to amend by July 29, 2022; the order granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Belleci v. Mroczek, Marisa Ann Belleci, representing herself, sued over the alleged wrongful foreclosure of her residential property. She also sought an emergency restraining order, but the court denied it, and her later attempt to bring state-court cases into this action was rejected.
The defendants moved to dismiss, but Belleci filed no response. The court said her complaint’s allegations were conclusory and relied on legal theories that courts had repeatedly rejected in challenges to nonjudicial foreclosures.
Judge Richard Seeborg granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. Because Belleci was representing herself, the court gave her an opportunity to amend by July 29, 2022; it said a final dismissal would be entered and the case closed if she did not amend or otherwise respond.
The detailed version
- Belleci v. Mroczek · No. 3:21-cv-09630
- Richard Seeborg
- July 7, 2022
Background
Marisa Ann Belleci, appearing without a lawyer, brought this action alleging wrongful foreclosure of her residential property. With her complaint, she sought a temporary restraining order, which the court had denied for multiple reasons. That earlier order described the complaint as invoking theories that had repeatedly been found meritless in wrongful-foreclosure cases and indicated that Belleci appeared to have stated no viable claim.
Belleci later attempted to remove one or more cases pending against her in state court so they would become part of this federal action. The court rejected that attempt as improper and struck the documents. The defendants then properly filed and noticed a motion to dismiss. Because Belleci was a registered electronic filer, notice was automatically sent to her email address of record. She filed no response and had not provided the court with an updated physical address.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that the motion to dismiss had to be granted. Although the complaint invoked several statutory provisions, the court found that its allegations were wholly conclusory and based on legal theories that courts had repeatedly rejected in cases challenging nonjudicial foreclosures. The opinion cited a prior Northern District of California decision collecting those cases.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. It gave Belleci an opportunity to amend if she had a good-faith basis to do so and intended to continue the matter in that court. Any amended complaint had to be filed by July 29, 2022. The court stated that if Belleci did not amend or otherwise respond, a final dismissal would be entered without further notice and the case would be closed. The order was signed by Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.