Liu v. Fidelity National Title Company

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03728
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVEN LIU, Case No. 25-cv-03728-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION

10 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Steven Liu filed this civil action bringing various claims about the 14 foreclosure of his sister’s property and the subsequent filing of unlawful detainer actions against 15 himself and his sister. See Dkt. No. 1; see also Dkt. No. 22. The magistrate judge issued a 16 screening order concluding that the complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil 17 Procedure Rules 8 and 12, and granted Liu leave to file an amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 7. 18 Liu filed a first amended complaint (FAC). See Dkt. No. 15. The FAC did not establish 19 standing or plausibly state a claim, and so the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation 20 advising dismissal on the grounds that the FAC is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See 21 Dkt. No. 22. 22 Liu filed an “Opposition to the Magistrate Judge’s Finding and Recommendation,” see 23 Dkt. No. 25, which the Court will take as a timely objection. The objections were not specific 24 responses to the report, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). They mainly 25 repeat Liu’s opposition to defendant BayMark Financial, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 24, 26 with a few statements to the effect that the “Magistrate Judge has decided to pick winners and 27 losers,” Dkt. No. 25 at 5. 1 Nothing in the objections fills in the shortcomings of the FAC. Liu says that he has 2 standing because he is a tenant in the foreclosed property, but the cited case does not support this 3 proposition. Dkt. No. 25 at 17 (quoting Green v. Superior Ct., 10 Cal. 3d 616, 620 (1974)). Liu’s 4 || wholly conclusory statement that “the allegerd [sic] deficiencies in the RICO portion of the 5 lawsuit can be easily fixed,” id., does not meaningfully address the pleading issues. It is also not 6 an accurate observation about the state of the allegations in the FAC. 7 After an independent review by the Court of the record and the magistrate judge’s order, 8 || and reviewing Liu’s claims with the generous eye afforded to pro se litigants, dismissal is 9 warranted for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. Further amendment is not warranted 10 || because Liu has had multiple opportunities to allege his case, and guidance about the places where 11 he stumbled. The report and recommendation is adopted in full, and the case is closed. Defendant 12 BayMark Financial, Inc.’s pending motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 18, is denied as moot. The hearing 13 set for October 9, 2025, is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: October 3, 2025 16

JAMES#PONATO Z 18 United Btates District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28