Avent v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
1:19-cv-00830
N.D.N.Y.Jul 29, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Reuben Avent, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sues Progressive Casualty Insurance and individual agents alleging race-based discrimination and mishandling of insurance claims stemming from two motor-vehicle incidents (Feb 2018 and May 17, 2018).
- Plaintiff alleges Progressive denied or mishandled claims, raised his premiums, cancelled his policy, and blocked his ability to obtain other insurance; seeks over $12 million and injunctive relief (reimbursement, reinstatement, clearing of insurance history).
- Plaintiff asserts a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and several state-law claims (breach/mishandling, wrongful termination of policy, etc.).
- The magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and concluded the § 1981 claim lacks factual allegations showing defendants’ discriminatory intent.
- The complaint fails to plead complete diversity (no corporate citizenship or defendants’ states of citizenship identified) and provides no adequate support for the amount-in-controversy requirement; only a specific damage figure is $4,249.87 for the parking-lot accident.
- Recommendation: dismiss the complaint without prejudice, give plaintiff leave to amend his § 1981 claim, and if the federal claim is dismissed, decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of § 1981 claim (racial discrimination) | Avent alleges defendants used race and animus to favor the other driver and mishandle claims | (Implicit) Defendants’ conduct not specified to show discriminatory intent | Claim dismissed for failure to plead specific facts showing discriminatory intent; plaintiff granted leave to amend |
| Diversity jurisdiction (complete diversity) | Plaintiff asserts defendants are out-of-state; civil cover sheet checked diversity | Complaint does not allege corporations’ states of incorporation/principal place of business or individual defendants’ citizenship | Diversity not properly pleaded; court cannot find subject-matter jurisdiction on current record |
| Amount in controversy for diversity | Plaintiff demands over $12 million; seeks compensatory and punitive damages | Complaint lacks factual support tying claimed damages to recoverable amounts; only $4,249.87 is specifically alleged | Court questions the $12M figure as unsupported; amount-in-controversy not adequately shown |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | Plaintiff invokes federal jurisdiction (federal claim) | If federal claim dismissed, no remaining federal question to anchor jurisdiction | Recommendation to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state claims if federal § 1981 claim is dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts making claim plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions unsupported by facts need not be accepted)
- Brown v. City of Oneonta, New York, 221 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2000) (elements required to state a § 1981 claim)
- City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507 (1973) (courts must police subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (amount-in-controversy must be shown with legal certainty)
- Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 347 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 2003) (amount demanded in complaint is prima facie amount-in-controversy)
- Cave v. East Meadow Union Free School Dist., 514 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 2008) (district court may dismiss state claims after federal claims are dismissed)