Carlos Dario Wilson v. Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARLOS DARIO WILSON, Case No. 25-cv-08909-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, Docket No. 17 LLC, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff Carlos Dario Wilson, proceeding pro se, has filed suit against Defendants Horizon 15 Actuarial Services, LLC (“Horizon”); Unite Here, Local 2 (“Union”); Mike Casey; and Anand 16 Singh.1 In his complaint, Mr. Wilson alleges that he was formerly an employee of the Union; that 17 the Union contracted with Horizon to provide certain services to Union employees; that Horizon 18 suffered a data breach; and that Mr. Wilson was injured a result.2 According to Mr. Wilson, the 19 data breach “made possible violent stalking[,] cyber stalking, witness intimidation, obstruction, 20 harassment, rape, torture and the human trafficking by third party actors believed to be the agents 21 and associates of former Unite Here[] Local 2 . . . leader, Mike Casey.”3 Compl., ECF Page 3. 22 1 Mr. Casey, as alleged, is the former president of the Union. Mr. Singh appears to be the current 23 president.

24 2 As alleged by Mr. Wilson, a class action was brought against Horizon because of the data breach. See Sherwood, et al. v. Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-01495-ELR (N.D. Ga.). 25 That lawsuit settled, but Mr. Wilson opted out of the class action settlement.

26 3 Attached as Exhibit C to the complaint is a letter written by Mr. Wilson. In the letter, Mr. Wilson seems to claim that the alleged wrongdoers are, in fact, family members and others 27 associated with them. See Compl., Ex. C (ECF Page 3-4). Mr. Wilson brought a separate lawsuit 1 Mr. Wilson also indicates that the goal of the “bad actors” was “to steal his identity and defraud 2 [him] and his family of his retirement investment accounts and his family’s estates.” Compl., ECF 3 Page 5; see also Compl., ECF Pages 9-10 (referring to his own financial accounts held with “San 4 Francisco Federal Credit Union, Merrill Lynch, Fidelity Investments, US Bank, Wells Fargo[,] 5 Bank of America, ING, Cash App, PayPal and others” as well as his “grandparent’s and parent’s 6 estates”). 7 Currently pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Horizon. Horizon 8 moves to dismiss on several grounds: 9 (1) There is no diversity jurisdiction because, as alleged, both Mr. Wilson and Horizon are 10 citizens of California. See ee Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 11 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“hold[ing] that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of 12 every state of which its owners/members are citizens”); Compl., ECF Page 3 (alleging 13 that some of the members of Horizon – an LLC – are citizens of California). 14 (2) There is no federal question jurisdiction because Mr. Wilson has pled only state law 15 causes of action. See Compl., ECF Page 4 (listing state law claims and also stating that 16 claims pled in Sherwood – all based on state law – were being incorporated). Mr. 17 Wilson’s passing reference to RICO and the Trafficking Victims Protection 18 Reauthorization Act in pleading a claim under Georgia law (violations of O.C.G.A. § 19 13-6-11) is insufficient to give rise to federal claims. See, e.g., Newtok Vill. v. Patrick, 20 21 F.4th 608, 616 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that “the ‘mere reference of a federal statute 21 in a pleading will not convert a state law claim into a federal cause of action if the 22 federal statute is not a necessary element of the state law claim and no preemption 23 exists’”). 24 (3) Subject matter jurisdiction is also lacking because Mr. Wilson’s complaint is patently 25 insubstantial or obviously frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 26 (1989) (stating that “[a] patently insubstantial complaint may be dismissed . . . for want 27 of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)”); Grant 1 Sept. 30, 2022) (noting that “[a] federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims that 2 are ‘essentially fictitious,’ ‘wholly insubstantial,’ ‘obviously frivolous,’ or ‘obviously 3 without merit’”). 4 (4) Mr. Wilson lacks standing because the injuries he claims are not traceable to any 5 alleged wrongdoing by Horizon. See Jones v. L.A. Cent. Plaza LLC, 74 F.4th 1053, 6 1057 (9th Cir. 2023) (stating that, “‘[t]o satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a 7 plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and 8 particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury 9 is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as 10 opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable 11 decision’”); Mot. at 9, 11 (emphasizing that “the alleged stalking, harassment, and 12 trafficking scheme in this case began before the [data security] incident” and that third 13 parties, not Horizon, engaged in these acts) (emphasis added). 14 Mr. Wilson has failed to file an opposition in response to Horizon’s motion to dismiss. In 15 light of the failure to oppose, the Court hereby orders as follows. 16 • The hearing on Horizon’s motion to dismiss is VACATED. 17 • The Court orders Mr. Wilson to show cause as to why his claims against Horizon 18 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In his response to this order to 19 show cause, Mr. Wilson must also address the merits of Horizon’s motion to 20 dismiss. 21 • In addition, Mr. Wilson is ordered to show cause as to why his claims against the 22 remaining defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or lack 23 of subject matter jurisdiction. It does not appear that Mr. Wilson has served the 24 remaining defendants. In addition, Horizon’s arguments on lack of subject matter 25 jurisdiction are equally applicable to the remaining defendants. 26 • Mr. Wilson’s response to this order to show cause shall be filed by March 4, 2026. 27 Mr. Wilson is expressly forewarned that, if he does not file a response by this ] prosecute and (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A final judgment will issue 2 and his case before this Court will be closed. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: February 18, 2026 7 8 EDWARD M. CHEN 9 United States District Judge 10 1] a 12

13 14

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28