Clancy v. Allstate Insurance
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-04257
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Clancy v. Allstate Insurance, Judge Freeman denied Norman Clancy’s request to set aside judgment, leaving the original judgment in place.
Norman Clancy, whose request to set aside the judgment was denied, and Allstate Insurance, because the original judgment remains in place.
What happened
In Clancy v. Allstate Insurance, Norman Clancy filed an amended complaint after judgment had already been entered against him. The court struck that filing and told him to file a request to set aside the judgment by October 17, 2020.
Clancy filed another amended complaint on October 19, explaining his delay in part by citing medical hardship. The court treated it as a request to set aside the judgment but found that he had not shown why the judgment should be reopened or that the court had authority over Allstate Insurance.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the request. The original judgment remains in place because Clancy did not allege facts connecting Allstate to California, while he identified Illinois and Texas addresses for Allstate and said the disputed house was in New York.
The detailed version
- Clancy v. Allstate Insurance · No. 5:19-cv-04257
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 21, 2020
Background
Judgment had already been entered against Norman Clancy. On October 6, 2020, Clancy, who was representing himself, filed an amended complaint. The court struck it on October 7 and instructed him that he needed to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) to obtain relief from the judgment. That rule permits relief based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court stated that the motion had to be filed by October 17, 2020, one year after the judgment was entered.
On October 19, Clancy filed another document labeled an amended complaint. Because it contained no claims against Allstate Insurance and instead explained his delay, including medical hardship, the court treated it as a Rule 60(b) motion.
Reasoning
The court stated that Clancy had still not properly applied to proceed without paying filing fees. The court also screened his filing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and concluded that he had not alleged facts establishing personal jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority over Allstate in this case.
Clancy alleged that Allstate was incorporated in Illinois and had its principal place of business there. He also listed a Dallas, Texas, address for Allstate. The court found no basis for general personal jurisdiction. Clancy’s statement that Allstate was authorized to do business in California and subject to the court’s jurisdiction was conclusory and insufficient. The court also noted that Clancy had said the destroyed house at issue was in New York and involved an interpleader action in the Southern District of New York. He had not alleged any fact connecting Allstate to California.
The opinion states that the case had initially been dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Clancy’s Rule 60(b) motion. The court stated that the original judgment remains in place.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.