Aiken v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
3:21-cv-00180
D. Nev.Apr 27, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Patricia Aiken (pro se) alleges a box of Sun‑Maid Organic Raisins bought at Costco in Bozeman, Montana contained a hard object that sheared off a premolar, causing injury and potential health impacts.
- Aiken alleges she wrote CEOs of Sun‑Maid and Costco and received no response; she sues Chubb Group, Senior Claims Director Michael Rettig, Sun‑Maid Growers of California, and Costco Wholesale seeking $200,000 and punitive damages for bad faith and product-related injury.
- Defendants are incorporated/located outside Nevada (Switzerland, Arizona, California, Washington); the incident and Aiken’s residence at the time occurred in Montana.
- Aiken currently resides in Eureka, Nevada and filed: an IFP application, a pro se complaint, and a motion to transfer the case to Las Vegas.
- The magistrate judge recommends granting IFP, filing the complaint, but dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; the transfer motion is recommended denied as moot.
- The magistrate explained the screening obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6), and indicated dismissal should be without prejudice to refiling in the proper forum if plausible claims can be pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant in forma pauperis | Aiken asserts inability to pay filing fee and submitted financial affidavit | No opposing argument recorded | Granted (magistrate finds affidavit shows inability to pay) |
| Whether Nevada is proper venue / court has personal jurisdiction | Aiken filed in Nevada because she currently lives there | Defendants and incident are located outside Nevada; no connection to this district | Venue improper; lack of personal jurisdiction; complaint dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether complaint survives screening for plausible claim | Aiken alleges product defect and bad‑faith handling causing tooth loss and damages | Allegations lack ties to Nevada and contain limited factual detail tying defendants to actionable conduct in this district | Complaint dismissed without prejudice for venue/jurisdiction defects; plaintiff may refile in correct court if plausible claims can be pled |
| Motion to transfer to Las Vegas | Aiken asks transfer to Las Vegas | Transfer rendered unnecessary if case dismissed for improper venue | Denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (IFP provisions apply to all civil actions and screening obligations)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of plausibility standard to complaint review)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) failure‑to‑state standard tracks Rule 12(b)(6))
- U.S. v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1981) (IFP affidavit must state poverty with particularity)
- Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505 (9th Cir. 2015) (screening required before serving a pleading in IFP litigation)