Mohammad O. Sabri and Mona Sabri v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co.
- Donovan Frank
- 0:26-cv-01689
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Sabri v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co., Magistrate Judge Elkins granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint but denied their request to pause any limitations deadlines as premature.
Pro se plaintiffs (individuals without a lawyer) suing an insurer over a property damage claim — particularly those who need to update or expand their complaints early in litigation before a defendant has responded. Also relevant to anyone seeking equitable tolling of insurance policy deadlines.
What happened
In Sabri v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co. (Case No. 26-cv-1689), Mohammad and Mona Sabri are suing their insurer, Chubb Indemnity Insurance Co., for damages after a house fire. They filed a motion asking the court to let them add newly discovered losses to their case and to freeze any contractual deadlines related to those new claims.
The court found that the Sabris did not need the court's permission to amend their complaint at this stage. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may update their complaint once on their own — without asking the court — as long as the defendant has not yet filed an answer or a certain time period has not passed. Because Chubb had not yet responded to the complaint and had not even been formally served, that window had not started. The court also warned the Sabris that they must formally serve Chubb within 90 days of filing or the case could be dismissed.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court allowed the Sabris to file an amended complaint on their own under the applicable rule, but denied the request to pause (toll) any policy or contractual deadlines, finding that issue premature before Chubb had even appeared in the case — and noting it would be improper to decide such matters without hearing from all parties.
The detailed version
- Mohammad O. Sabri and Mona Sabri v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co. · No. 0:26-cv-01689
- Donovan Frank
- Mar. 23, 2026
Background
Plaintiffs Mohammad O. Sabri and Mona Sabri, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed a complaint on March 2, 2026, against Chubb Indemnity Insurance Co. for damages allegedly due under an insurance policy following a house fire. Shortly after filing, plaintiffs filed a motion (Dkt. 7) seeking two forms of relief: (1) leave to supplement their damages to include losses discovered after the initial insurance claim submission, and (2) equitable tolling — meaning a pause or extension — of any contractual or policy-based limitations periods relating to those supplemental damages.
Analysis
Leave to Amend the Complaint
The court first addressed whether plaintiffs needed permission to amend their complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course — that is, without court permission — within 21 days after serving it, or within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading (such as an answer), whichever is earlier. The court noted that as of the date of the order, no proof of service and no answer had been filed, meaning the 21-day clock had not yet begun. Accordingly, plaintiffs were entitled to file an amended complaint on their own, without any court order granting them leave.
Equitable Tolling
The court then addressed the request to equitably toll any limitations periods. Equitable tolling is a legal doctrine that can extend a deadline to file a claim when certain circumstances — such as excusable neglect by the filing party — prevented timely action. The court cited the Eighth Circuit's standard, which permits equitable tolling when a claimant has received inadequate notice, when an appointment-of-counsel motion was pending, when the court misled the plaintiff into believing all required steps had been taken, or when the defendant engaged in affirmative misconduct that caused the plaintiff to delay. The court declined to rule on this request, reasoning that it would be inappropriate to decide the issue on an unopposed motion before the defendant had appeared and had an opportunity to be heard. The request was therefore denied.
Service Warning
Finally, the court observed that there was no certificate of service or other indication that Chubb had received notice of the lawsuit. The court reminded plaintiffs that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a complaint to be served on the defendant within 90 days of filing, and that pro se status does not excuse compliance with the Federal Rules. The court warned that failure to effect service could result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute under Rules 4(m) and 41(b).
Disposition
The motion was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs were authorized to file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(A). The request for equitable tolling was denied as premature.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.