IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE : CIVIL ACTION INSURANCE COMPANY : : v. : : NO. 25-1874 AMADOU DIALLO :
MEMORANDUM Bartle, J. August 7, 2025 Before the court is the motion of plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for default judgment as to defendant Amadou Diallo (Doc. # 8). State Farm seeks a declaration in this diversity action that it has no duty or obligation under Diallo’s automobile insurance policy to defend or indemnify him in two actions in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Those cases are Wint v. Diallo, et al., No. 240800150, and Luu, et al. v. Diallo, et al., No. 240800150. I State Farm issued an automobile insurance policy, # 9980-C16-38, to Diallo, a Philadelphia resident. He owned a 2008 Toyota Sienna which was covered under the policy. On April 30, 2025, State Farm filed an amended complaint for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Plaintiffs in the underlying state court actions allege that they were involved in a motor vehicle accident on April 13, 2023 in which Diallo used his 2008 Toyota Sienna to transport individuals for a charge. State Farm’s policy excludes liability coverage for “damages arising out of the ownership,
maintenance, or use of a vehicle while it is being used to carry persons for a charge . . . .” On May 2, 2025, Diallo was served with a summons and copy of the amended complaint at his current address. Under Rule 12(a)(1)(A), he was required to file an answer to the amended complaint on or before May 23, 2025. Diallo has failed to file an answer or otherwise appear. The Clerk of the Court entered default against Diallo on June 13, 2025 pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. II The Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”) permits federal
courts to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).1 The action must still be justiciable under Article III as a “case or controversy.” There must be “substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests” that are
1. This Act does not confer jurisdiction. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as State Farm is a citizen of Illinois and Diallo is a citizen of Pennsylvania. immediate and real enough to justify declaratory judgment. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007). The court has discretion to entertain actions under
the DJA and may abstain on the basis of “considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration.” Kelly v. Maxum Specialty Ins. Grp., 868 F.3d 274, 282 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 288 (1995)). First, the court must find whether there is a “parallel state proceeding” before considering other factors, which include: (1) the likelihood that a federal court declaration will resolve the uncertainty of obligation which gave rise to the controversy; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the public interest in settlement of the uncertainty of obligation; (4) the availability and relative convenience of other remedies; (5) a general policy of restraint when the same issues are pending in a state court; (6) avoidance of duplicative litigation; (7) prevention of the use of the declaratory action as a method of procedural fencing or as a means to provide another forum in a race for res judicata; and (8) (in the insurance context), an inherent conflict of interest between an insurer’s duty to defend in a state court and its attempt to characterize that suit in federal court as falling within the scope of a policy exclusion. Id. at 283. A “parallel state proceeding” involves the same parties and presents the opportunity to resolve the same state law issues. See id. at 284. The underlying state court actions are not “parallel.” State Farm is not a party to either lawsuit. Further, the questions of whether Diallo’s insurance
policy with State Farm covers Diallo’s potential liability and whether he is in fact liable are distinct. See id. at 287. The following factors enumerated in Kelly weigh in State Farm’s favor. A declaratory judgment would resolve uncertainty and the parties will not be inconvenienced by a federal resolution. The federal courthouse is in the same city as the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. There is no evidence before the court that any public interest is at stake or that another remedy would be adequate. As the actions concern Diallo’s liability, there is no need to exercise the “general policy of restraint.” The litigation here will not be duplicative of any other action, and there is no risk of a “race
for res judicata.” While State Farm asserts that the allegations in the underlying complaints fall within the scope of a policy exclusion, Diallo has been served and had an opportunity to defend against State Farm’s lawsuit here. III While our Court of Appeals does not favor resolution of cases by default judgment, this court nonetheless has the discretion to enter a default judgment against a party that has failed to answer or otherwise respond to the pleadings. See Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; United States v. $55,518.05 in U.S. Currency, 728 F.2d 192, 194-95 (3d
Cir. 1984). Before doing so, the Clerk of the Court must first enter default under Rule 55(a). When plaintiff does not seek a sum certain in the complaint, he or she must obtain relief from the court through a motion for default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).2 Upon entry of default, the court must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint, except for those as to damages. PPG Indus. Inc. v. Jiangsu Tie Mao Glass Co., 47 F.4th 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2022) (citing Comdyne I v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990)). State Farm has produced specific proof of valid service on Diallo. See Gold Kist, Inc. v. Laurinburg Oil Co., Inc., 756 F.2d 14, 19 (3d Cir. 1985). In the affidavit of
service, Henry Duarte, process server at the MCS Group, certified that he delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to Diallo at his current address on May 2, 2025, at 10:42 A.M. This is sufficient.3
2. Where default judgment is entered against a minor or incompetent person, they must be represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has appeared. This is not an issue. 3. Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a plaintiff seeking default judgment must file an affidavit confirming whether the defendant is in the military service. See 50 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE : CIVIL ACTION INSURANCE COMPANY : : v. : : NO. 25-1874 AMADOU DIALLO :
MEMORANDUM Bartle, J. August 7, 2025 Before the court is the motion of plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for default judgment as to defendant Amadou Diallo (Doc. # 8). State Farm seeks a declaration in this diversity action that it has no duty or obligation under Diallo’s automobile insurance policy to defend or indemnify him in two actions in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Those cases are Wint v. Diallo, et al., No. 240800150, and Luu, et al. v. Diallo, et al., No. 240800150. I State Farm issued an automobile insurance policy, # 9980-C16-38, to Diallo, a Philadelphia resident. He owned a 2008 Toyota Sienna which was covered under the policy. On April 30, 2025, State Farm filed an amended complaint for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Plaintiffs in the underlying state court actions allege that they were involved in a motor vehicle accident on April 13, 2023 in which Diallo used his 2008 Toyota Sienna to transport individuals for a charge. State Farm’s policy excludes liability coverage for “damages arising out of the ownership,
maintenance, or use of a vehicle while it is being used to carry persons for a charge . . . .” On May 2, 2025, Diallo was served with a summons and copy of the amended complaint at his current address. Under Rule 12(a)(1)(A), he was required to file an answer to the amended complaint on or before May 23, 2025. Diallo has failed to file an answer or otherwise appear. The Clerk of the Court entered default against Diallo on June 13, 2025 pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. II The Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”) permits federal
courts to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).1 The action must still be justiciable under Article III as a “case or controversy.” There must be “substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests” that are
1. This Act does not confer jurisdiction. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as State Farm is a citizen of Illinois and Diallo is a citizen of Pennsylvania. immediate and real enough to justify declaratory judgment. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007). The court has discretion to entertain actions under
the DJA and may abstain on the basis of “considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration.” Kelly v. Maxum Specialty Ins. Grp., 868 F.3d 274, 282 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 288 (1995)). First, the court must find whether there is a “parallel state proceeding” before considering other factors, which include: (1) the likelihood that a federal court declaration will resolve the uncertainty of obligation which gave rise to the controversy; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the public interest in settlement of the uncertainty of obligation; (4) the availability and relative convenience of other remedies; (5) a general policy of restraint when the same issues are pending in a state court; (6) avoidance of duplicative litigation; (7) prevention of the use of the declaratory action as a method of procedural fencing or as a means to provide another forum in a race for res judicata; and (8) (in the insurance context), an inherent conflict of interest between an insurer’s duty to defend in a state court and its attempt to characterize that suit in federal court as falling within the scope of a policy exclusion. Id. at 283. A “parallel state proceeding” involves the same parties and presents the opportunity to resolve the same state law issues. See id. at 284. The underlying state court actions are not “parallel.” State Farm is not a party to either lawsuit. Further, the questions of whether Diallo’s insurance
policy with State Farm covers Diallo’s potential liability and whether he is in fact liable are distinct. See id. at 287. The following factors enumerated in Kelly weigh in State Farm’s favor. A declaratory judgment would resolve uncertainty and the parties will not be inconvenienced by a federal resolution. The federal courthouse is in the same city as the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. There is no evidence before the court that any public interest is at stake or that another remedy would be adequate. As the actions concern Diallo’s liability, there is no need to exercise the “general policy of restraint.” The litigation here will not be duplicative of any other action, and there is no risk of a “race
for res judicata.” While State Farm asserts that the allegations in the underlying complaints fall within the scope of a policy exclusion, Diallo has been served and had an opportunity to defend against State Farm’s lawsuit here. III While our Court of Appeals does not favor resolution of cases by default judgment, this court nonetheless has the discretion to enter a default judgment against a party that has failed to answer or otherwise respond to the pleadings. See Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; United States v. $55,518.05 in U.S. Currency, 728 F.2d 192, 194-95 (3d
Cir. 1984). Before doing so, the Clerk of the Court must first enter default under Rule 55(a). When plaintiff does not seek a sum certain in the complaint, he or she must obtain relief from the court through a motion for default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).2 Upon entry of default, the court must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint, except for those as to damages. PPG Indus. Inc. v. Jiangsu Tie Mao Glass Co., 47 F.4th 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2022) (citing Comdyne I v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990)). State Farm has produced specific proof of valid service on Diallo. See Gold Kist, Inc. v. Laurinburg Oil Co., Inc., 756 F.2d 14, 19 (3d Cir. 1985). In the affidavit of
service, Henry Duarte, process server at the MCS Group, certified that he delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to Diallo at his current address on May 2, 2025, at 10:42 A.M. This is sufficient.3
2. Where default judgment is entered against a minor or incompetent person, they must be represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has appeared. This is not an issue. 3. Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a plaintiff seeking default judgment must file an affidavit confirming whether the defendant is in the military service. See 50 U.S.C. State Farm has also met the requirement that the “unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action.” Serv. Emps. Int’l Union Local 32BJ, Dist. 36 v. ShamrockClean,
Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 631, 635 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (citation omitted). An insurer has a duty to defend or indemnify an insured when the “factual allegations of the underlying complaint, taken as true, come potentially within the scope of coverage of a policy.” See Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Gutowski, 644 F. Supp. 3d 123, 138-39 (E.D. Pa. 2022) (quoting Am. Strategic Ins. Corp. v. Burkhardt, Civ. A. No. 22-18, 2022 WL 157892, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2022)); see also Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Com. Union Ins. Co., 908 A.2d 888, 896 (Pa. 2006). Under Pennsylvania law, the court must give effect to clear and unambiguous contract language. See Gene & Harvey Builders, Inc. v. Pa. Mfrs.’ Ass’n Ins. Co., 517 A.2d 910, 913
(Pa. 1986). The underlying complaints allege that, at the time of the April 13, 2023 accident, Diallo was using his 2008 Toyota Sienna to carry passengers for a charge. His State Farm insurance policy excludes such conduct from liability coverage. See, e.g., id. at 139. Diallo’s insurance policy with State Farm offers no liability coverage for “damages arising out of
§ 3931(b)(1)(A). State Farm has complied with this requirement and avers that Diallo is not in the military. the ownership, maintenance, or use of a vehicle while it is being used to carry persons for a charge . . . .” The complaints in the two underlying actions both seek damages
relating to Diallo’s use of his 2008 Toyota Sienna to “carry persons for a charge.” To ascertain the appropriateness of default judgment in this case, the court must examine (1) whether plaintiff will suffer prejudice if default is denied; (2) whether defendant has a litigable defense; and (3) whether defendant’s delay is due to culpable conduct. Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing $55,518.85 in U.S. Currency, 728 F.2d at 195). If the motion for default judgment is denied, State Farm will suffer prejudice. As noted above, State Farm would then have obligations to Diallo contrary to the terms of the
insurance policy. Diallo does not have a valid defense to this lawsuit. To determine whether State Farm is obligated to provide liability coverage to Diallo, it must consider only the allegations of the underlying complaint, which are taken to be true at this stage, and the language of the policy at issue. Kvaerner, 908 A.2d at 896. Again, there is no coverage as Diallo was transporting the plaintiffs for a charge. Despite being served with a summons and complaint, Diallo has failed to appear. No reason appears to excuse his failure to do so.
Accordingly, the motion of plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for default judgment will be granted.