Livia Scotto v. Wells Fargo & Co

── Livia Scotto v. Wells Fargo & Co ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2858 __________ LIVIA M. SCOTTO v. WELLS FARGO & CO; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, doing business as STUDENT AID GOV.; AGENCY COUNSEL OF RECORD, FILED HERETOFORE, WITH SUMMONS SUBPOENA; U.S. TREASURY SERVICES; WYNDAM; ARR; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS DE; CITIBANK, N.A.; SMITH GAMBRELL RUSSELL INT; ECMC; ZIONS BANK; UNION BANK TRUST; ASAP BANK; NELNET; WILLIAM MUNN MICHAEL; DUNLAP; UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII; MAUI COMMUNITY COLLEGE; JOHATHAN BEATTY TRUST; AON MEN RA II RE; BERMUDA; VIRGIN IS; CAYMAN; MIAMI, FL; STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE CO.; WINTER HAVEN FLORIDA; I. AON NORTH AMERICA; CONYER; STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES HAWAII; AON; TOKIO MARINE INSURANCE GROUP; PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; NCUA; BANK OF HAWAII; CREDIT SUISSE; BARCLAYS DE; COUNTY OF MAUI CORPORATION COUNSEL, AND ALL OTHER ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS FILED THEREFORE AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-03117) District Judge: Honorable Wendy Beetlestone ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 13, 2026  Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and BOVE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 14, 2026) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Pro se Appellant Livia M. Scotto appeals from the dismissal of her civil complaint with prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. In June 2025, Scotto filed a complaint alleging “fraudulent and deceptive corporate agency,” “Quasi contract fraud, illegality collections, fraud, duress [and] Liability cul[p]ability.” It named more than 25 defendants including Citibank, the United States Department of Education, and Tokio Marine Insurance Group. The District Court granted Scotto’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and dismissed it for failing to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The dismissal was without prejudice and with leave to amend to properly identify all defendants and state the basis for her claims against each of them. Scotto filed an amended complaint, as well as a motion to recuse the District Court judge and an emergency motion for the appointment of counsel. The District Court * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 denied the motions, noting that they “d[id] not contain a parsable statement of facts and legal authorities.” ECF No. 13 at 1 n.1. In her amended complaint, Scotto named the following defendants in the caption: Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo Active Cash Visa Signature Card, Maimonides Medical Center, Wells Fargo Cash Back Visa Signature Card, Barclays, Ally, Visa, State Farm Insurance Co., and the Mars Corporation. Also, within the amended complaint, she named as defendants numerous other businesses and individuals. Scotto claimed diversity and federal question jurisdiction, but listed non- existent federal statutes as the basis for the latter. Scotto alleged that there were “various illegal electronic funds transfers [and] cash advances on cards, accou