Migues v. State Farm Insurance Companies Fire Claims

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 17, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00027
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DUSTIN MIGUES, 10 Case No. 23-cv-00027-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 DISMISS STATE FARM INSURANCE 13 COMPANIES FIRE CLAIMS, 14 Defendant.

15 16 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion of defendant State Farm General Insurance 17 Company (erroneously named as “State Farm Insurance Companies Fire Claims”) to dismiss the 18 complaint brought by pro se plaintiff Dustin Migues is suitable for disposition without oral 19 argument and the hearing set for March 23, 2023, is vacated. Because this is a motion to dismiss, 20 the only documents properly considered are the complaint, originally filed in state court, a copy of 21 which is attached as exhibit 1 to the Notice of Removal (Dkt. No. 1), the moving papers (Dkt. 22 Nos. 2 and 3), the opposition Migues timely filed on January 5, 2023 (Dkt. No. 13), and 23 defendant’s reply brief (Dkt. No. 15). In light of Migues’ status as a pro se litigant, however, his 24 letter filed January 7, 2023, (Dkt. No. 7), and his additional opposition brief filed February 7, 25 2023, (Dkt. No. 19), have also been reviewed.1 26

27 1 Migues is advised that going forward he must ensure that his filings comply with the Federal 1 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 2 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While “detailed factual allegations” are not 3 required, a complaint must have sufficient factual allegations to state a claim that is “plausible on 4 its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 5 555, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 6 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 7 alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 8 A motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 9 Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. See Conservation 10 Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be 11 based on either the “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or on “the absence of sufficient facts 12 alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Id. at 1242 (internal quotation marks and citation 13 omitted). 14 Here, the complaint is not entirely clear, but appears to allege that State Farm has denied 15 claims Migues has made under an insurance policy he purchased from the company. State Farm 16 requests judicial notice of a copy of the policy, a “Renters Policy.” Migues has not challenged the 17 authenticity of the document or disputed that it represents the policy under which his claims are 18 made. The policy identifies the residence premises to which it applies as 333 12th St. Apt. 709 in 19 San Francisco. The complaint alleges that 333 12th St. was purchased by San Francisco’s 20 Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, and that Migues is now unable to return to 21 his residence “due to the actions of the City & County of San Francisco through government 22 agencies and contractors.” 23 The complaint expressly seeks compensation “under Coverage C— Loss of Use due to 24 housing realities in San Francisco,” although the complaint also identifies Coverage C as being 25 associated with a loss arising from “Riot or Civil Commotion.” The complaint does not allege any 26 riot or civil commotion, or resulting loss. Furthermore, as actually described in the policy, 27 Coverage C potentially applies only when “a loss insured causes the residence premises to become 1 uninhabitable.” Where applicable, Coverage C provides for payment of “the reasonable and 2 necessary increase in cost incurred by an insured to maintain their normal standard of living for up 3 to 24 months” or, in certain circumstances, 36 months.2 No facts are alleged, however, that the 4 premises were uninhabitable, much less that they became uninhabitable as the result of a loss 5 insured under the policy. The complaint also refers to “Personal Liability Coverages and Limits 6 under a state of emergency,” but does not allege Migues incurred personal liability and it does not 7 identify any state of emergency. 8 The caption of the complaint titles the claims as “1. Bad Faith Insurance Claim” and “2. 9 Hate Crime Emotional Distress.” The “bad faith” presumably relates to Migues’ contention that 10 his claims should have been paid, but the complaint includes no facts supporting a contention that 11 the denial was in bad faith. There are no allegations to support the label “hate crime,” which 12 would not be a civil claim in any event. 13 Migues’ January 10th letter addressed to the magistrate judge then presiding over this 14 action describes some of his personal history and wrongs committed against him by various 15 persons and entities. The letter asserts that San Francisco Pride was shut down by “hate crime 16 activity.” The letter is unclear as to what, if any, relationship Migues contends there is between the 17 “hate crime activity” he mentions and the conduct of State Farm or his claims in this case. 18 Migues’ opposition timely filed on January 25th contains only the assertions that he “does 19 not agree with the motion to dismiss,” that State Farm sold the policy in California and retained 20 California counsel, that the loss is “specifically listed” in the policy, and that this lawsuit is a 21 “valid claim/case.” Migues’ unauthorized further opposition filed on February 7th, adds nothing of 22 substance to the analysis. Migues complains that counsel for State Farm promised to communicate 23

24 2 Migues argues the policy expressly references California Government Code § 8558, a section 25 which defines “state of emergency.” Indeed, it does, specifically in the context of explaining the conditions under which loss of use expenses may be paid for an additional 12 months. There is no 26 dispute, however, that California law applies to this policy and to the parties’ respective rights and obligations. No facts are alleged in the complaint about any state of emergency that would 27 implicate § 8558 or the extended coverage period. 1 a settlement demand to his client but failed to do so, and that State Farm and the agent who sold 2 || the policy are now unwilling to communicate with him directly. While Migues asserts “hate crime 3 activity falls under bound policy verbiage,” and that the attack on San Francisco Pride 2022 made 4 || national news, he offers no intelligible argument as to why the allegations in his complaint are 5 sufficient to show a plausible claim that State Farm was obligated by the terms of the Renters 6 || Policy to pay a claim under “Coverage C— Loss of Use” or any other policy provisions. He has 7 alleged no facts to support a claim that his residence was made uninhabitable by any loss covered 8 || by the policy. 9 The complaint therefore must be dismissed. In light of Migues’ status as a pro se litigant, 10 || he will be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Migues is encouraged to make use 11 of the resources available to self-represented litigants, as described in the flyer and handbook 12 || provided to him with the Notice and Order filed by the magistrate judge at Dkt. No. 8. 5 13 Any amended complaint must be filed by April 21, 2023. If no amended complaint is filed, 14 || this action will be closed without further notice.

a 16 || ITISSO ORDERED.

|| Dated: March 17, 2023 19 RICHARD SEEBORG 20 Chief United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE No. 23-cv-00027-RS