Edward Mierzwa v. Safe & Secure Self Storage LLC
493 F. App'x 273
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Mierzwa, proceeding pro se, sues his insurer, its affiliates, and related professionals over a water-leak damage claim at his storage unit facility.
- The amended complaint also targets the storage facility, and attorney defendants who represented other parties in a state court action, alleging RICO, fraud, civil conspiracy, and unlawful cross-state conduct.
- The district court granted in forma pauperis status and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), concluding no valid federal claim and no complete diversity.
- The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, then dismissed the amended complaint as frivolous and closed the case after denial of reconsideration.
- Mierzwa appealed, and the Third Circuit granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding Mierzwa failed to plead a plausible RICO claim or complete diversity, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mierzwa pleads a plausible RICO claim | Mierzwa asserts a civil RICO enterprise and pattern of racketeering activity. | Defendants contend the complaint lacks an enterprise and pattern, and fails Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud. | No plausible RICO claim. |
| Whether there is federal jurisdiction over the claims | Complete diversity exists between plaintiff and defendants. | Diversity is not established; pleadings fail to show citizenship for complete diversity. | Lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over remaining claims. |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed for frivolousness under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) | Complaint states valid federal and state-law claims. | Complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim or establish jurisdiction. | affirmed dismissal as frivolous and declined to grant relief. |
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | State-law claims should be considered alongside federal claims. | No independent basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims. | Proper to decline supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010) (pleading enterprise and pattern for a RICO claim)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (federal pleading standard requires plausibility)
- Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2004) (fraud-based RICO pleading requires particularity)
- Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Cir. 1993) (1962(d) conspiracy claim requires substantive claims)
- Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009) (supplemental jurisdiction and jurisdictional considerations)
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) (proper pleading of jurisdiction; amendment limitations)
- Wymard v. McCloskey & Co., 342 F.2d 495 (3d Cir. 1965) (jurisdictional allegations and amendment suitability)
- Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2010) (diversity citizenship and propriety for LLC/LP entities)
- Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2008) (citizenship for corporate defendants in diversity)
- Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 177 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 1999) (burden of pleading jurisdiction and citizenship)