Rothschild v. The Pacific Companies

Background

Mayer Amschel Rothschild proceeded without a lawyer and filed several complaints against The Pacific Companies. The operative pleading was his Third Amended Complaint, filed September 29, 2023. The court had previously screened earlier complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the statute requiring review of complaints filed by people allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.

The Third Amended Complaint asserted claims for fraud, civil conspiracy, interference with business expectancy, breach of contract, nuisance, and personal injury. Rothschild alleged that he and Stephanie Ann Gildred signed a term sheet with The Pacific Companies for a proposed condominium development and that Gildred later sold the property without his involvement. He also alleged that The Pacific Companies’ nearby parking-garage construction caused noise, odors, vibrations, pollution, and resulting physical and emotional injuries. He sought $5 million in actual damages and $50 million in punitive damages.

Motion to Add Steven Wagstaffe

Rothschild moved to add Steven Wagstaffe as a defendant and assert claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He alleged that Wagstaffe, identified in the opinion as the District Attorney for San Mateo County, had interfered with the adjudication of this case and had unfairly prosecuted Rothschild in an unrelated state criminal case.

The court denied the motion. It explained that Rothschild did not allege that Wagstaffe was involved in the events underlying the existing claims. The proposed claims therefore had no connection to the claims in the Third Amended Complaint. The court also noted that Rothschild had already received two court-authorized opportunities to amend and had used an amendment available without court permission. In addition, Rothschild had already filed a separate civil-rights action asserting similar claims against Wagstaffe, and that case provided an opportunity to address deficiencies in those claims.

Screening and Service

The court reviewed the Third Amended Complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), applying the same basic standard used for a motion claiming that a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Construing the pro se pleading liberally, the court found that the allegations were sufficient to state facially plausible claims for fraud, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with business expectancy, breach of contract, nuisance, and personal injury.

The court also found that the complaint sufficiently alleged diversity jurisdiction. The complaint alleged that The Pacific Companies was incorporated and had its principal place of business in Eagle, Idaho, and that Rothschild lived in and was domiciled in Florida. A footnote noted that Rothschild also alleged that he lived in and was domiciled in Arizona but provided a Cape Coral, Florida address; the court accepted the allegations as sufficient in light of his pro se status.

The court concluded that Rothschild’s allegations of poverty were sufficient and that revoking his permission to proceed without paying filing fees was not warranted at that time. It ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and the United States Marshal to serve The Pacific Companies without prepayment of fees. The court continued the case-management conference from February 15, 2024, to April 18, 2024.

Disposition

The court DENIED the Motion to Add Additional Defendant. It found that the Third Amended Complaint stated cognizable claims against The Pacific Companies and ordered service of the complaint and related documents. The order did not decide whether Rothschild would ultimately prevail on those claims.