Alanis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 5:21-cv-01261

Plaintiff Nancy Alanis filed suit challenging a foreclosure and related actions, asserting federal §1983 claims and various state-law torts and declaratory relief against Wells Fargo, lawyers Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann and individual defendants.
The same core dispute produced extensive prior litigation: Judge David Ezra dismissed an earlier suit as barred by res judicata; another removed action was remanded by Judge Biery for lack of diversity.
Alanis filed the present case in December 2021; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Alanis did not timely oppose the dismissal motions; she filed motions to amend her complaint and to vacate a Texas state-court vexatious-litigant order instead.
The Court granted the 12(b)(6) motions as unopposed under Local Rule CV-7(d)(2), denied leave to amend and to vacate the state order, dismissed Alanis’s claims with prejudice, found the requested TRO/injunctive relief moot, and directed entry of final judgment.
The Court issued a contemporaneous order declaring Alanis a vexatious litigant and imposed filing restrictions in federal court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal motions should be denied on the merits despite no response	Alanis filed a motion to amend instead of opposing; sought to preserve claims	Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and invoked Local Rule CV-7(d)(2) for lack of response	Court granted the motions as unopposed and declined to reach the merits
Whether leave to amend should be granted	Alanis sought leave to file an amended complaint to cure defects	Defendants argued amendment is improper given the extensive prior litigation and that claims could have been raised earlier	Court denied leave to amend due to prior opportunities and related litigation history
Whether federal court should vacate a state-court vexatious-litigant order	Alanis asked this Court to vacate a Texas state-court order restricting her filings	Defendants argued federal court cannot act as an appellate tribunal over state orders; state appellate procedures govern	Court denied the motion to vacate; directed state-review under Texas procedures
Whether emergency injunctive relief remains and procedural posture (transfer)	Alanis sought a TRO and injunctive relief; also sought transfer to Judge Ezra	Defendants moved to dismiss; opposed transfer	Court dismissed TRO/injunctive relief as moot, denied transfer, and dismissed claims with prejudice

Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606 (5th Cir. 1977) (courts should give plaintiffs opportunity to amend defective complaints)
McClellon v. Lone Star Gas Co., 66 F.3d 98 (5th Cir. 1995) (standards for dismissal and leave to amend)
Hart v. Bayer Corp., 199 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2000) (discussion of pleading and amendment principles)
Crear v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 491 F. Supp. 3d 207 (N.D. Tex. 2020) (denial of leave to amend where claims could have been raised earlier)