Austin v. Kemper Corp.
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-04183
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Austin v. Kemper Corp., Judge Donato granted dismissal motions and dismissed the case with prejudice because the claims were precluded or inadequately pleaded.
George Jarvis Austin’s claims against Kemper Corp., Ricardo Lara, Diane Kaneyuki, and Kevork Artinian were dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Austin v. Kemper Corp., George Jarvis Austin alleged that Kemper Corp. discriminated against him by refusing to settle injuries from a car accident because of his race. He also sued California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and California Department of Insurance employees Diane Kaneyuki and Kevork Artinian.
The court said Austin’s claims against Kemper were based on the same alleged wrongdoing as claims in an earlier related case. The court also found that Austin had not plausibly alleged that the California defendants acted because of his race, violated a due-process right, conspired with Kemper, or participated in the alleged wrongdoing.
Judge James Donato granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that Austin had already filed two complaints and that further amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Kemper Corp. · No. 3:24-cv-04183
- James Donato
- Feb. 13, 2025
Background
George Jarvis Austin alleged that he was injured in a car accident involving a driver insured by Kemper Corp. He claimed that Kemper discriminated against him because of his race by refusing to agree to a settlement. Austin also sued Ricardo Lara, identified as California’s state Insurance Commissioner, and Diane Kaneyuki and Kevork Artinian, identified as employees of the California Department of Insurance.
Kemper claims
The court said Austin’s claims against Kemper were essentially the same as claims dismissed by another judge in an earlier related proceeding, No. 21-cv-03208-SI. The earlier claims had been dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court applied res judicata, a rule that generally prevents a party from pursuing claims that were raised or could have been raised in an earlier case. The court rejected Austin’s argument that he was asserting only injuries beginning after the earlier case was dismissed, explaining that the claims still arose from Kemper’s alleged failure to act after the same car accident.
Claims against the California defendants
The court found that Austin’s amended allegations did not plausibly state claims against Lara, Kaneyuki, or Artinian. For the equal-protection claim, the complaint did not provide a non-speculative basis to conclude that the individual defendants acted because of Austin’s race. For the due-process claim, Austin did not identify authority supporting a right to have a state agency conduct an investigation in the way he preferred. The court also found no plausible allegations of a conspiracy between the California Department of Insurance defendants and Kemper, and no non-conclusory allegations showing Lara’s participation in the alleged wrongdoing.
Disposition
The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkt. Nos. 59 and 91. Because Austin had already filed two complaints in the action and further amendment would be futile, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. The opinion does not separately state a disposition for individual claims apart from granting the motions and dismissing the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.