Razavi v. Coti

Background

Melina Razavi, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, sued Carlos Coti and Geico Insurance Company after an automobile accident. The third amended complaint asserted four claims: negligence against Coti; breach of the insurance contract against Geico; insurance bad faith against Geico; and a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against Geico.

The court had previously dismissed Razavi’s complaint, first amended complaint, and second amended complaint, each with permission to amend. In dismissing the second amended complaint, the court concluded that Razavi had not alleged facts supporting diversity jurisdiction but that her ADA claim could support federal-question jurisdiction and related state-law claims. The court had found that the earlier ADA allegations did not state a sufficient claim and gave Razavi guidance about what additional facts to allege.

Screening Standard and ADA Claim

Because Razavi was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court screened the third amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. At this stage, the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. If the complaint met the statute’s low threshold, the case could proceed to service.

Razavi alleged that Geico imposed strict deadlines during its insurance claims process and had a policy of refusing accommodations that would relieve people from those deadlines. She alleged that she told Geico about her disability, requested an accommodation at the beginning of the claims process, and asked to be relieved from strict compliance with the deadlines. She further alleged that Geico refused, that she could not complete the claims process on time, and that Geico offered an unreasonably reduced settlement and ultimately denied her claim because she missed the deadlines.

The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient to state a colorable ADA claim for purposes of the initial screening required by § 1915. The court expressly did not decide whether the third amended complaint would survive a later motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

State-Law Claims

The court also concluded that the state-law claims met the threshold requirements of § 1915. For negligence, Razavi alleged that Coti drove negligently, carelessly, and too fast, lost control of his vehicle, hit her vehicle, and admitted that he could not stop. She alleged that the collision injured her and damaged her vehicle.

For breach of contract, Razavi alleged that she had an insurance policy with Geico, complied with its terms or conditions, and that Geico failed to process her claim, timely inspect her vehicle, obtain a timely repair estimate, or pay benefits due under the policy. She alleged resulting economic and other losses.

For insurance bad faith, Razavi alleged that Geico unreasonably withheld benefits and engaged in practices including offering a low payment and misrepresenting policy provisions. The court concluded that these allegations also met the initial screening threshold.

Order

The court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve Coti and Geico Insurance Company. Razavi was required to provide the Clerk of Court with information sufficient to allow service by December 20, 2019. The order allowed the case to proceed past initial screening but did not decide the ultimate merits of any claim.