Mazzei v. Liberty Mutual Insurance CO.
1:25-cv-01408
E.D.N.YMay 16, 2025Background
- Ettore Mazzei, detained at Rikers Island, filed a pro se civil lawsuit against Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Pennstar, and Andrea Pometto.
- Mazzei alleged that Pometto was injured on his property due to her own actions and intoxication; she then sued him for personal injury.
- Insurance defendants settled with Pometto, allegedly failing to depose a crucial witness.
- Mazzei claimed this settlement harmed his ability to secure insurance and sought $600,000 in damages.
- Jurisdiction was asserted based on diversity of citizenship; both Mazzei and Pometto reside in New York.
- Plaintiff filed to proceed in forma pauperis; the court reviewed the complaint for subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal subject matter jurisdiction | Diversity jurisdiction exists | No complete diversity; both in NY | No jurisdiction; case dismissed |
| Viability of tort/fraud claims | Defendants acted fraudulently, causing damages | (No argument recorded in complaint or order) | Claims dismissed |
| In forma pauperis status for appeal | (N/A) | (N/A) | Denied for appeal |
| Adequate pleading | Sufficient facts alleged | Complaint insufficient under federal rules | Not sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaints are read liberally by courts)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must be plausible on its face)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185 (liberal construction for pro se pleadings)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (pleading standard at motion stage)
- Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Am. Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, 93 F.3d 1064 (party asserting diversity must show amount in controversy)
- Tongkook Am., Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781 (federal courts must ensure proper jurisdiction)
- Handelsman v. Bedford Vill. Assocs., 213 F.3d 48 (complete diversity required for jurisdiction)
- Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945 (domicile as basis for diversity jurisdiction)
- Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697 (subject matter jurisdiction can be raised any time)
- Coppedge v. United States, 269 U.S. 438 (standard for in forma pauperis appeals)