Liccardi v. Delta Personnel / Delta Staffing Services, 3:16-cv-02537

Background

Pro se plaintiff Serafina Liccardi sued Delta Personnel/Delta Staffing Services and family members Rose and Stanley Lyskowski alleging unpaid commissions, embezzlement/conversion of investments (~$100,000) and an entitlement to $20,000 in inheritance, plus other damages.
Plaintiff filed multiple complaints and amended four times; the district court repeatedly instructed her to consolidate and plead facts sufficient to state a plausible claim under Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6).
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to follow court orders and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; they also raised statute-of-limitations and alter-ego/sham-entity defenses as alternatives.
The magistrate judge reviewed only Rule 12(b)(6) grounds, concluding the Fourth Amended Complaint is cryptic, conclusory, and lacks the factual allegations required to support any listed federal or state causes of action.
The complaint failed to allege foundational facts for commissions (who owed, amounts, calculation, timing, ownership interest, supporting agreements) or for inheritance (decedent, estate, executor, amount, testamentary documents).
The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding further amendment futile after multiple opportunities and specific guidance from the court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Fourth Amended Complaint states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)	Liccardi contends she adequately pled breach, theft/conversion, concealment, discrimination, and unpaid commissions/inheritance and that amendments clarified the claims	Defendants contend the pleading is cryptic, conclusory, lacks basic factual allegations, and fails to state any plausible claim	Dismissed: Complaint fails to state any plausible claim; dismissal recommended under Rule 12(b)(6) with prejudice
Whether sanctions/dismissal under Rule 41(b) are warranted for failure to follow court orders	Liccardi argues she complied by clarifying verbiage and format	Defendants argue continued noncompliance, bad faith, and delay	Court did not rely on Rule 41(b); dismissal reached on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds but found past failures to follow orders relevant to futility of further amendment
Whether claims are time-barred (statute of limitations)	Liccardi ties allegations to longstanding conduct; disputes not specifically developed in pleading	Defendants assert many allegations concern conduct ~29 years old and thus barred	Court did not decide limitations because dismissal was appropriate on 12(b)(6) deficiency; statute-of-limitations raised as alternative defense
Whether individual defendants can be liable via alter-ego/sham-entity theory	Liccardi alleges family members misappropriated funds through the business	Defendants argue plaintiff has not and cannot plead facts showing Delta was a sham to perpetrate fraud	Court did not reach substantive veil-piercing analysis; found plaintiff failed to plead the basic facts for any claim against individuals

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard and that formulaic recitations are insufficient)
In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2010) (accept well-pleaded facts and apply Twombly/Iqbal standard)
Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) (construing pro se pleadings and pleading standards)
Hughes v. Tobacco Institute, Inc., 278 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2001) (pleading standards and factual allegations)
Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 2007) (court need not accept conclusory allegations)
Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2005) (limitations on accepting unwarranted factual inferences)
Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1981) (pro se litigant not exempt from procedural and substantive rules)
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 1999) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate when plaintiff has alleged best case)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedures for objections to magistrate judge recommendations)
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (effect of failure to file timely objections to magistrate findings)