Pehrson v. Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company
1:24-cv-01180
| W.D. Tex. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Mathew Pehrson filed a pro se lawsuit alleging a conspiracy by various insurance-related defendants to deny his insurance claim after a car accident.
- Defendants include Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company, the Davies Company, the Littleton Group, Wolters Kluwer N.V., CT Corporation Service, National Registered Agents, Inc., and Zulimar Narbaez.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6), arguing failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Pehrson attempted to further amend his complaint without court leave and sought various forms of injunctive relief, including compelling defendants to register as Texas entities.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the claims and denying all further motions as moot; Pehrson objected, but his objections were rejected by the District Court.
- The Court struck the improperly filed amended complaint, denied leave to amend as futile, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff pleaded a viable § 1981 claim | Did not intend to bring § 1981 claim; objects to interpretation | Complaint lacks race-based discrimination; fails to state § 1981 claim | Dismissed; no § 1981 claim stated |
| Whether private citizen can initiate criminal action | Claims equal accountability for individuals/corporations | Only prosecutors can initiate criminal actions | Dismissed; plaintiff cannot prosecute criminally |
| Whether the amended complaint should be accepted | Filed to cure deficiencies; claims lack of business registration invalidates service | Procedurally improper; amendment is futile and lacks legal foundation | Amendment struck, leave to amend denied |
| Sufficiency of claims regarding defendants' business authority in Texas | Asserts lack of Texas registration means improper service and claims against defendants | Allegations are conclusory, do not establish a legally cognizable claim | Dismissed for failure to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (standard for objections to magistrate’s report and recommendation)
- Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (sets pleading requirements for § 1981 claims)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (standard for granting leave to amend a complaint)