Avent v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

Background

Reuben Avent, proceeding without a lawyer, asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and under state law against Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Steven Jones, Danielle Barror, and “Unknown Company Representatives.” The court had previously granted Avent permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

This order addressed service of process—the formal delivery of the lawsuit and summons to defendants—and assistance in identifying defendants whose names or addresses were unknown. It did not decide whether Avent’s claims were legally valid.

Service on Progressive

Because Avent was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Progressive. The court extended the time for serving Progressive to 90 days after the summons for Progressive is issued. It stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Avent should request more time.

The Clerk of Court was directed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service process form for Progressive, issue the summons, and provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. The court also directed the Clerk to mail the order and complaint to Progressive at the address listed in the order.

Identifying the other defendants

The court found that Avent’s complaint provided enough information for Progressive to identify and provide service addresses for Jones and Barror. The court also directed Progressive’s counsel to identify the unidentified defendants and provide their service addresses. The unidentified defendants were described as Progressive employees who, between May 17, 2018, and November 22, 2019, had telephone conversations with Avent about coverage under Progressive car-insurance policies and the cost of related premiums.

Progressive’s counsel must provide the requested information to Avent and the court within 60 days of the order. Within 30 days after receiving it, Avent must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified individuals and listing all defendants’ service addresses. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. After it is filed, the court will screen it and, if necessary, issue another order directing service on Jones, Barror, and the newly named defendants.

Other directives and disposition

The court directed Avent to notify the court of any address change and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so. It also directed the Clerk to mail Avent a copy of the order and an information package.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not resolve the merits of Avent’s federal or state-law claims.