Canen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “courts in this jurisdiction consistently have held that pro se plaintiffs . . . are not adequately able to represent the interests of the United States”
• denying recovery under the FCA because “Plaintiffs root their FCA claims in lost ‘income tax revenue’”
• collecting cases and noting that “courts in this jurisdiction consistently have held that pro se plaintiffs . . . are not adequately able to represent the interests of the United States”
• “[C]ourts in this jurisdiction consistently have held that pro se plaintiffs . . . are not adequately able to represent the interests of the United States.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).