Goodwin v. State Farm General Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 21, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00795
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DUCHUN GOODWIN, Case No. 1:24-cv-00795-JLT-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT

13 v. (ECF No. 1)

14 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE COMPANY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Duchun Goodwin (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action 19 on July 9, 2024. Plaintiff’s complaint is currently before the Court for screening. 20 I. 21 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 Notwithstanding any filing fee, the court shall dismiss a case if at any time the Court 23 determines that the complaint “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which 24 relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 25 such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) 26 (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners); 27 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United States, 70 1 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis 2 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) 3 (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). The Court exercises its discretion to 4 screen the plaintiff’s complaint in this action to determine if it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) 5 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a 6 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 7 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same 8 pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a 9 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .” Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 11 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 13 544, 555 (2007)). 14 In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and 15 accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 16 94 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, 17 a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] 18 complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops 19 short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. (quoting 20 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Therefore, the complaint must contain sufficient factual content for 21 the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 22 alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the 23 deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Cato, 70 F.3d 1106. 24 II. 25 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 26 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of 27 the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 1 Insurance Company (“State Farm”); (2) Poonam Kalsi, identified as a claims specialist; (3) Laura 2 Selby, identified as a claims manager; (4) Jeannie Erickson, identified as a Claims Specialist; (5) 3 Leah Carrol; (6) Philip Call, identified as “manager agent”; and (7) Justin Gathers, identified as 4 “special investigation unit.” (Compl. 2-3, ECF No. 1.) 1 5 Plaintiff confirms the basis for jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction. (Compl. 3.) 6 When asked to list the federal statutes at issue in this case, Plaintiff lists: “41 U.S. Codes 6503 7 52.233-4 Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim, Sections 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights 8 Act of 1991.” (Compl. 4.) Despite indicating the case arises under federal question jurisdiction, 9 Plaintiff completes the form questions for diversity jurisdiction. (Compl. 4.) Plaintiff identifies 10 State Farm as a citizen of California, Arizona, Georgia, and Illinois and Defendant Kalsi as a 11 citizen of Georgia. (Compl. 4-5.) When listing each Defendants’ identifying information, 12 Plaintiff indicates Defendants Selby, Carrol, and Gathers are located in Arizona; Defendant 13 Erickson is located in Illinois; and Defendant Call is located in California. (Compl. 2-3.) 14 Under statement of claim, Plaintiff writes: “State Farm Insurance Company deliberately 15 undervalues my claim, wrongfully denies your claim or engages in a pattern of behavior intended 16 to limit their pay out on my claim. These are the contract damages, the extra contractual damages 17 and punitive damage. [Deceit] and Fraud practicing Deceptive and non Honest 18 [communication].” (Compl. 5.) 19 Under relief, Plaintiff writes: “Im Duchun Goowin and State farm have a contract 20 agreement that State farm has acted in bad faith and breach. Code section 790.03(h) 2695.7 21 2695.9 and more.” (Compl. 6) (unedited). 22 III. 23 DISCUSSION 24 For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff 25 shall be provided one opportunity to file an amended complaint to attempt to correct the 26 deficiencies at issue. 27 1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 1 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 2 Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 3 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must 4 simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which 5 it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citations and quotations 6 omitted). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements 7 of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 8 at 678 (citation omitted). This is because, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 9 conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 10 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, 11 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 12 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 13 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 14 for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 15 As a threshold matter, the Court notes Plaintiff has previously filed complaints against 16 Defendants alleging the same violation of federal law.2 On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed an 17 action against State Farm, Philip Call, Poonam Kalsi, and Laura Selby for violations of sections 18 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Goodwin v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., No. 1:23- 19 CV-00165 ADA HBK, 2023 WL 5758940 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023). The Court screened the 20 complaint and found it did not comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) but granted leave to 21 amend. The magistrate judge then found the amended complaint was deficient and frivolous and 22 recommended the case be dismissed without leave to amend. The district judge adopted the 23 findings and recommendations, dismissed the action without leave to amend, and entered 24 judgment against Plaintiff. (Id. at *1.) 25 On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed an action against State Farm, Jeannie Erickson, 26 Leah Carrol, and others. Goodwin v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., No. 1:23-CV-00232-SAB, 2023

27 2 The court may take judicial notice of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978)); see also United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2018) (“A court may take 1 WL 4239064, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:23- 2 CV-00232 ADA SAB, 2023 WL 5758942 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023). There, Plaintiff alleged 3 violation of sections 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 were at issue. The undersigned 4 screened the complaint and found it failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). 5 Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to amend the complaint, but Plaintiff’s amended complaint 6 consisted only of a caption page. The undersigned recommended the action be dismissed for 7 failure to state a claim. The district judge adopted the findings and recommendations and 8 dismissed the action without leave to amend. 9 In the instant complaint, Plaintiff names the same Defendants and alleges the same 10 violation of sections 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in addition to various statutes 11 and regulations related to breach of contract. Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and conclusory 12 statements alleging some form of discrimination, a potential breach of an unidentified contract, 13 and a denial of an unspecified claim. As currently pled, Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain 14 enough factual details to permit the Court to draw the reasonable inference that any named 15 Defendant is liable for any misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff does not state 16 any specific actions that any Defendant took relating to the alleged discrimination or other 17 misconduct. Plaintiff fails to allege the relevant terms of the contract, any details regarding 18 performance of the contract, and when the alleged breach occurred. Further, Plaintiff does not 19 mention any of the individual Defendants again after naming them as Defendants. For these 20 reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). 21 Courts may dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 even when the 22 complaint is not “wholly without merit.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 23 1996). “Rule 8(e), requiring each averment of a pleading to be ‘simple, concise, and direct,’ 24 applies to good claims as well as bad, and is a basis for dismissal independent of Rule 12(b)(6).” 25 Id. The Court has repeatedly provided Plaintiff guidance that his complaint must contain 26 sufficient facts showing he is entitled to relief and that each defendant’s involvement must be 27 sufficiently alleged. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff one opportunity to file an amended 1 numerous claims and defendants, he must separate each cause of action; state which Defendant 2 he believes is liable for that cause of action; and identify concise factual allegations that support 3 both the legal standard for the cause of action and show that the particular Defendant committed 4 the violation asserted. Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court will recommend dismissal with 5 prejudice of an amended complaint that fails to comply with Rule 8. 6 B. Diversity and Federal Question Jurisdiction 7 This Court has previously advised Plaintiff that federal courts are courts of limited 8 jurisdiction and their power to adjudicate is limited to that granted by Congress. U.S. v. Sumner, 9 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over 10 civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. 11 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Generally, there are two bases 12 for subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 13 §§ 1331, 1332. Here, Plaintiff checked the box indicating he is attempting to plead federal 14 question jurisdiction. However, Plaintiff also completed the portion of the form complaint for 15 claims proceeding under diversity jurisdiction. The Court will therefore address each in turn. 16 District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions between citizens of different 17 States in which “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of 18 interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This requires complete diversity of citizenship and the 19 presence “of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the district 20 court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action.” Abrego Abrego v. The Dow 21 Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff alleges that 22 he is a citizen of California. (Compl. 4.) Plaintiff indicates that Defendant State Farm General 23 Insurance Company is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in California, 24 Arizona, Georgia, and Illinois. (Compl. 5.) Plaintiff also indicates that the address for 25 Defendant Philip Call is in California. (Compl. 3.) Although Plaintiff states the amount in 26 controversy exceeds $75,000 (Compl. 5.), diversity jurisdiction does not exist because Plaintiff, 27 Defendant State Farm, and Defendant Call are citizens of the same state. 1 U.S. C. § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 2 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. “A case ‘arises under’ federal law either 3 where federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law 4 necessarily turns on some construction of federal law.” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 5 277 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal punctuation omitted) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. 6 v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983) (citations omitted)). “[T]he 7 presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 8 rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 9 the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Republican Party of Guam, 277 F.3d at 10 1089 (citations omitted). 11 As to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged facts against the 12 Defendants that would state a federal claim. 13 1. Plaintiff Has not Stated a Claim to Establish Federal Question Jurisdiction 14 Plaintiff alleges violation of “Sections 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.” 15 (Compl. 4.) However, it is unclear what factual allegations could support such claim. 16 “Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act), Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 17 Stat. 1071, in order to restore civil rights limited by then-recent Supreme Court decisions and to 18 ‘strengthen existing protections and remedies available under federal civil rights laws to provide 19 more effective deterrence and adequate compensation for victims of discrimination.” Lambert v. 20 Tesla, Inc., 923 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Civil 21 Rights Act Of 1991, PL 102–166, November 21, 1991, 105 Stat 1071 (“An Act to amend the 22 Civil Rights Act of 1964 to strengthen and improve Federal civil rights laws, to provide for 23 damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination, to clarify provisions regarding 24 disparate impact actions, and for other purposes.”); 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (“Damages in cases of 25 intentional discrimination in employment.”). 26 Plaintiff’s complaint contains insufficient facts pertaining to any of the named 27 Defendants and does not describe what any Defendants have done that would amount to a 1 119 S. Ct. 2118, 2123–24, 144 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1999) (“Prior to 1991, only equitable relief, 2 primarily backpay, was available to prevailing Title VII plaintiffs; the statute provided no 3 authority for an award of punitive or compensatory damages . . . [w]ith the passage of the 1991 4 Act, Congress provided for additional remedies, including punitive damages, for certain classes 5 of Title VII and ADA violations.”); Fonseca v. Sysco Food Servs. of Arizona, Inc., 374 F.3d 6 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2004) (to establish a prima facie case for Title VII discrimination, plaintiff 7 must show: (1) they are a member of a protected class; (2) they were qualified for the position; 8 (3) they suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside 9 her protected class were treated more favorably); Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 10 675 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 2012) (“To establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate 11 under the ADA, Samper must show that (1) [s]he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) 12 [s]he is a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable 13 accommodation; and (3) [s]he suffered an adverse employment action because of [her] 14 disability.”) (quotations and citations omitted); Campos v. Town of Pahrump, 274 F. Supp. 3d 15 1106, 1115–16 (D. Nev. 2017) (“[T]o establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA, 16 an employee must show that: (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity; (2) suffered an 17 adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal link between the two.”) (citations and 18 quotations omitted). 19 Plaintiff also alleges that federal law and regulations related to breach of contract are at 20 issue. (Compl. 4). However, the complaint does not identify any contract, nor does it identify 21 any insurance policy that may be the source of the unspecified claim that Defendants have 22 allegedly wrongfully denied. (Compl. 5.)3 23 3 Plaintiff also alleges in the section indicating relief sought that State Farm “has acted in bad faith…” (Compl. 6.) 24 Under California law, “[e]very contract imposes on each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in each performance and in its enforcement.” Richards v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., ___ F.Supp.3d ___, No. 4:23-CV- 25 00145-HSG, 2024 WL 24327, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024) (quoting Carson v. Mercury Ins. Co., 210 Cal.App.4th 409, 429 (2012) (quotation omitted). “[A] contractual obligation is the underpinning of a bad faith claim, [and] such claim cannot be maintained unless policy benefits are due under the contract.” Granite Outlet, Inc., 190 F.Supp.3d 26 at 987; Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange, 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1153 (1990). “California law is clear, that without a breach of the insurance contract, there can be no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” 27 Manzarek, 519 F.3d at 1034 (citing Waller, 11 Cal.4th 1, 900 P.2d at 638–39). Because Plaintiff fails to allege the existence of a contract, its terms, or any breach of those terms, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of duty of 1 Plaintiff also cites 41 U.S.C. § 6503 to establish federal question jurisdiction. However, 2 section 6503 applies only to breaches or violations of representations or stipulations included in 3 contracts made by United States agencies “for the manufacture or furnishing of materials, 4 supplies, articles, or equipment, in an amount exceeding $10,000.” Bowman v. USDA FSIS, No. 5 4:18-CV-3169, 2019 WL 462715, at *1 (D. Neb. Feb. 6, 2019) (citing 41 U.S.C. §§ 6502, 6503). 6 Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts to support such a claim. 7 Plaintiff also cites “52.233-4” to establish federal question jurisdiction, which the Court 8 construes as 48 C.F.R. 52.233-4. This regulation merely states that certain government contracts 9 should contain a term that “United States law will apply to resolve any claim of breach of this 10 contract.” 48 C.F.R. 52.233-4. Although unclear, Plaintiff appears to allege that State Farm 11 undervalued, denied, and engaged in a pattern to limit a payout of Plaintiff’s unspecified claim. 12 (Compl. 5.) Plaintiff’s claim thus appears to arise from an unspecified contract with State Farm, 13 not a government agency. Plaintiff fails to establish that federal law governs this action. 14 Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cognizable claim for 15 violation of Plaintiff’s federal rights. 16 2. Citations to California Insurance Code 17 In the section indicating the relief sought, Plaintiff states that State Farm has breached 18 “code section 790.03(h) 2695.7 2695.9 and more.” (Compl. 6.) The Court construes this to refer 19 to section 790.03(h) as that of the California Insurance Code and Title 10 of the California Code 20 of Regulations sections 2695.7 and 2695.9. 21 Because the Legislature only contemplated enforcement of the Unfair Instances Practices 22 Act (“UIPA”) by the Insurance Commissioner, private actions under California Insurance Code § 23 790, et seq. are barred. Height St. Skilled Care, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 1:21-CV- 24 01247 JLT BAK (BAM), 2022 WL 1665220, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 25, 2022) (citing Moradi- 25 Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos., 46 Cal. 3d 287, 304 (1988) (holding that section 790.03 was 26 not intended “to create a private civil cause of action against an insurer that commits one of the 27 various acts listed in section 790.03, subdivision (h)”)). Likewise, the regulations promulgated 1 right of action. Id. (citing Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. Glob. Aerospace, Inc., No. 2:17-CV- 2 01515-KJM-AC, 2020 WL 3893395, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2020)); see also Rattan v. United 3 Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 84 Cal. App. 4th 715, 724 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (“neither the Insurance Code 4 nor regulations adopted under its authority provide a private right of action.”)). To the extent 5 Plaintiff alleges unspecified Defendants violated the UIPA or its supporting regulations, Plaintiff 6 fails to state a cognizable claim. 7 IV. 8 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 9 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. 10 The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the above-identified 11 deficiencies to the extent Plaintiff is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 12 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 13 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 14 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 15 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to 16 raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 17 omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 18 claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 19 “buckshot” complaints). 20 Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey 21 v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927. Therefore, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint must be 22 “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 23 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days, and is subject to the 24 twenty-five (25) page limit set forth above. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 3 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 4 first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 5 order; 6 3. The first amended complaint, including attachments, shall not exceed twenty-five 7 (25) pages in length; and 8 4. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, 9 the Court will recommend to the district judge that this action be dismissed, with 10 prejudice, for failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute, and for failure to 11 state a claim. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 14 | Dated: _ August 20, 2024

Is UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28