Michel et al v. Mapfre Insurance et al
Plaintiff: Stevenson Michel and Larisha Cobb
Defendant: Mapfre Insurance and Nicole Keller
Case Number: 3:2022cv01403
Filed: November 4, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Presiding Judge: Maria E Garcia
Referring Judge: Sarala V Nagala
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. In this action, Plaintiffs Stevenson Michel and Larisha Cobb, appearing pro se and seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, have sued Defendants Mapfre Insurance and Nicole Keller. The Court is mindful that it must interpret Plaintiffs' filings to raise the strongest arguments they suggest, given that they are pro se litigants. Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006). Interpreting the complaint liberally, the Court believes Plaintiffs are attempting to assert one or more state law claims against Defendants, including a claim for breach of an automobile insurance contract and, perhaps, claims for intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.The Court begins by addressing Plaintiff Cobb's pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. #2 . Upon review of ECF No. #2 , the Court finds that Cobb qualifies for in forma pauperis status. Typically, in an action with multiple plaintiffs, each plaintiff must individually qualify for in forma pauperis status. Garland-Sash v. Stutz, No. 1:05-CV-04207-ENV-LB, 2006 WL 8439321, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006). In this case, however, the Court will consider the filing and granting of Cobb's motion to proceed in forma pauperis to be sufficient for purposes of conducting an initial review of Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). The Court therefore grants Plaintiff Cobb leave to proceed in forma pauperis solely for purposes of this order and proceeds to an initial review of the complaint under 1915(e), focusing specifically on whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Tadeshe v. Akinsiku, No. 18CV6882LDHLB, 2019 WL 1271643, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019) (granting the plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis solely for the purpose of review under 1915(e) and thereafter dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Pursuant to 1915(e), the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action if it determines that the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists where a plaintiff has alleged a claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or where the parties are of diverse state citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 1331; 28 U.S.C. 1332. There must be a "reasonable probability" that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Smulley v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., No. 21-2124-cv, 2022 WL 16753118, at *1 (2d Cir. Nov. 8, 2022). Plaintiffs, as the parties invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court, have the burden of proving that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount. Sec. Plans, Inc. v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc'y, 769 F.3d 807, 814 n.5 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Scherer v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of the U.S., 347 F.3d 394, 397 (2d Cir. 2003)). There is a rebuttable presumption that the face of the complaint is a good faith representation of the actual amount in controversy. Id.Here, none of the state law claims Plaintiffs appear to be attempting to assert present a federal question, that is, a claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. With respect to potential diversity jurisdiction, it appears from the complaint that there is complete diversity of citizenship, as Plaintiffs reside in Connecticut and Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are located in Massachusetts. The damages alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint, however, do not meet the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold for the matter to proceed in federal court. Plaintiffs claim "vandalism/total loss claim" damages in the amount of $10,511.44, malicious conduct damages in the amount of $3,000, emotional distress damages in the amount of $6,000, and punitive damages in the amount of $1,000. ECF No. #1 at 2. These amounts, when totaled, are far from the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter and it must be dismissed. The Court also notes that, while the complaint names Defendant Keller in its case caption, it contains no factual allegations against her, which could be an independent basis for dismissal of the complaint against Keller if the Court were not already dismissing the entire complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Plaintiffs are advised that they may seek to refile the action in Connecticut Superior Court. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/14/2022. (Kuegler, Adam) Modified on 11/14/2022 to mark document as an opinion (Bozek, M.).
November 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/4/2022. (Mendez, D)
November 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/4/2022. (Mendez, D)
November 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 1/3/2023. Discovery due by 5/6/2023. Dispositive Motions due by 6/10/2023. Signed by Clerk on 11/4/2022. (Mendez, D)
November 4, 2022 Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Magistrate Judge Maria E. Garcia added. (Shafer, J.)
November 4, 2022 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Larisha Cobb. (Barry, L)
November 4, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Nicole Keller, Mapfre Insurance, filed by Stevenson Michel, Larisha Cobb. (Barry, L)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Michel et al v. Mapfre Insurance et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Stevenson Michel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Larisha Cobb
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mapfre Insurance
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Nicole Keller
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?