Albert v. GEICO General Insurance Company

Background

Kallys Albert Sr., proceeding without a lawyer, sued GEICO General Insurance Company and John Doe. The complaint repeated claims from an earlier round of this dispute concerning alleged changes to automobile insurance coverage, unpaid or unapplied overpayments, and the handling of insurance claims. The new complaint also asserted two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal statute addressing racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts, along with state-law claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith, conversion, declaratory relief, false-light invasion of privacy, and tortious interference.

GEICO moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim. Albert moved to strike GEICO’s motion, alleging improper communications with court staff, improper references to an earlier report and recommendation, litigation abuse, and misrepresentations.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court first considered diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires citizens of different states and more than $75,000 in dispute. GEICO argued that the alleged losses involved premium overcharges, a deductible, and unitemized property-damage and roadside-assistance claims, and that even a broader calculation would remain below $75,000. Albert submitted no evidence rebutting GEICO’s valuation. The court rejected Albert’s estimate of up to $5 million because he did not allege an accident that would entitle him to the insurance policy’s full limit. The court therefore concluded that Albert had not proved the amount required for diversity jurisdiction.

The court then considered federal-question jurisdiction. It rejected Albert’s § 1981 discrimination claim because the complaint alleged racial motivation in conclusory terms but provided no facts allowing an inference that GEICO acted because of racial animus. The court also rejected the § 1981 retaliation claim. Albert alleged that GEICO terminated his coverage because he had filed the earlier round of the dispute, but that earlier proceeding had not alleged racial discrimination, and Albert also alleged that coverage ended after he refused to pay a scheduled premium. The court found no protected activity under § 1981 and no plausible causal connection between the earlier proceeding and the termination.

The court also held that, to the extent Albert asserted a Seventh Amendment jury-trial claim based on the dismissal of the earlier proceeding, that claim failed under Rule 12(b)(6). A court may decide whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction without a jury. Because Albert failed to state a claim under § 1981 or the Seventh Amendment, the court found no federal-question jurisdiction.

Motion to Strike and Other Objections

The court held that Albert’s motion to strike was procedurally improper because Rule 12(f) generally authorizes striking material from a pleading, not striking a motion. Even so, the court considered Albert’s memoranda, affidavit, and exhibits when addressing the motion to dismiss. It did not consider Albert’s request for summary judgment because it had not considered matters outside the pleadings in deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

The court found no improper communication between GEICO’s counsel and court staff regarding a letter filed in connection with Albert’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It also found that GEICO’s references to public court reports and decisions were not improper or sanctionable. The court therefore denied Albert’s motion to strike and found no basis for sanctions.

Disposition

The court overruled Albert’s objections and adopted Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s report and recommendation in full. It granted GEICO’s motion to dismiss, denied Albert’s motion to strike, dismissed Albert’s claims against John Doe without prejudice, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.