Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-CV-0236
08-24-2022
CHRISTOPHER ZOMERFELD, et al., Plaintiffs v. GARDEN DRIVE-IN, et al., Defendants
MANNION, D.J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
William I. Arbuckle U.S. Magistrate Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Husband and wife Christopher and Donna Zomerfeld (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) claim that Christopher's father, Stephan Zomerfeld, died at the flea market hosted by Garden Drive-In. Plaintiffs claim that Garden Drive-In failed to have proper staff on hand to perform CPR for Stephan. Alongside Garden Drive-In, they name Nationwide Insurance Co. as a defendant, although the Court is unable to decern a cause of action against Nationwide.
For simplicity, the undersigned will refer to Plaintiffs and Stephan Zomerfeld by their first names, without intending any disrespect or undue familiarity.
Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs have not plead how this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiffs' claims against Nationwide Insurance, as written, do not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the statute of limitations appears to have run with respect to claims arising from Stephan's death.
Plaintiffs were granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and their original Complaint was screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). After reviewing Plaintiffs' Complaint, I issued an order explaining that the Complaint, as written, failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for the reasons mentioned above. I offered Plaintiffs an opportunity to submit an amended complaint but to date, Plaintiffs have not filed one. Therefore, I recommend that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed, and that the Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SCREENING COMPLAINTS FILED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
This Court has a statutory obligation to conduct a preliminary review of pro se complaints brought by litigants given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Specifically, the Court is obliged to review the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides, in pertinent part:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that -
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In performing this mandatory screening function, the Court applies the same standard that is used to evaluate motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a complaint should be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has observed the evolving standards governing pleading practice in the federal courts, stating that “pleading standards have seemingly shifted from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading, requiring a plaintiff to plead more than the possibility of relief to survive a motion to dismiss.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2009). “[A] complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief.” Id. at 211. It also “has to ‘show' such an entitlement with its facts.” Id.
To test the sufficiency of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must conduct the following three-step inquiry:
First, the court must “tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1947. Second, the court should identify allegations that, “because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 1950. Finally, “where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.” Id.Santiago v. Warminster Tp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010).
A complaint filed by a pro se litigant is to be liberally construed and ‘“however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Nevertheless, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013). Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Rather, a pro se complaint must recite factual allegations that are enough to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a “short and plain” statement of a cause of action.
III. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this pro se, in forma pauperis Complaint against two defendants: Garden Drive-In and Nationwide Insurance Co. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiffs allege that on April 30, 2017, Christopher's father, Stephen P. Zomerfeld, died at the flea market hosted by Garden Drive-In. (Id. at pp. 7-8). Plaintiffs claim that “Defendant's were negligent to have the proper medical staff or trained staff to perform CPR.” (Id.) (all errors in the original). Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant's knew 4 other people who died at there place of business,” and that “Defendant's know thousands of people attend this rural area for flea market and movies.” (Id.) (all errors in the original).
While Plaintiffs also name Nationwide Insurance as a defendant, Plaintiffs' allegations and claims against it are vague and confusing. Plaintiffs' Complaint reads:
Defendant's insurance co acknowledged then denied claim. Christopher Zomerfeld then reached out to Nationwide then they reopened claim do to last adjuster not responding so Jeff was fired. Then Insurance Company Nationwide acknowledged claim then denied again stating no claim Stephen P Zomerfeld died at the hospital.... Insurance company is claiming I'm not the son of Stephan P. Zomerfeld.(Id.).
Plaintiffs assert they have a cause of action for “duty, breach of duty, damages, loss of consortium, negligence, duty of care, emotional distress, pain and suffering, aggravation, [and] funeral expenses.” (Id.) (cleaned up). In exchange for these wrongs, Plaintiffs list two different demands for relief in separate locations in the Complaint: first Plaintiffs state “plaintiff[s] pray that we can settle in a large amount of money,” (Id. at p. 2), but later in the Complaint, Plaintiffs peg their damages at a more concrete figure: $5.5 million. (Id. at pp. 7-8).
IV. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs' Complaint suffers from at least three major infirmities: (1) Plaintiffs did not plead how this Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over this negligence case, (2) Plaintiffs have plead a woefully insufficient and confusing narrative about how Nationwide Insurance is involved in this case, and (3) the statute of limitations likely bars claims arising from Stephan's death. I'll discuss each.
A. PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO PLEAD HOW THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, a federal court has no authority to adjudicate a case. The two primary sources of the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Further, plaintiffs must plead grounds for jurisdiction, or else their case will be dismissed. Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 106 (3d Cir. 2015).
To invoke federal question jurisdiction, the cause of action must “arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, Plaintiffs' Complaint did not plead any facts to support federal question jurisdiction. Instead, Plaintiffs assert a state law negligence claim, a claim incognizable in federal court by itself. Plaintiffs do not assert a federal cause of action in their Complaint, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.
For diversity jurisdiction, federal courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions between citizens of different states so long as the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 104-05 (3d Cir. 2015). Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties, so unless there is another basis for federal jurisdiction, “no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.” Lincoln Benefit Life Co., 800 F.3d at 104-05 (quoting Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010)). Corporations they are deemed to be citizens of “any State by which it has been incorporated,” and “of the state where it has a its principal place of business.” Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 306 (2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).
Plaintiffs failed to plead diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appear to be citizens of Pennsylvania, but Plaintiffs did not plead the citizenships of the Defendants. Failing to plead jurisdiction is grounds for dismissal. Livingstone v. U-Haul Int'l, No. 21-2131, 2022 WL 421397, at * 3-4 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2022). Plaintiff failed to plead how this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, so this case should be dismissed.
B. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST NATIONWIDE INSURANCE DO NOT COMPLY WITH RULE 8
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explains that a Complaint must contain, “a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Dismissal under Rule 8 is appropriate when a complaint leaves “the defendants having to guess what of the many things discussed constituted [a cause of action];” Binsack v. Lackawanna Cnty. Prison, 438 Fed.Appx. 158 (3d Cir. 2011), or when the complaint is so “rambling and unclear” as to defy response. Tillio v. Spiess, 441 Fed.Appx. 109 (3d Cir. 2011). Similarly, dismissal is appropriate in “‘those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.'” Tillio v. Spiess, 441 Fed.Appx. 109, 110 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995)); Tillio v. Northland Grp. Inc., 456 Fed.Appx. 78, 79 (3d Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff's claims against Nationwide Insurance violates Rule 8's pleading requirements. As written, the Court has no idea what claims Plaintiffs are asserting against Nationwide Insurance. Plaintiffs' only plead negligence related claims, but the Court fails to see how Nationwide could be negligent in this case. So, the claims against Nationwide should be dismissed.
C. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS LIKELY BARS CLAIMS RELATED TO STEPHAN ZOMERFELD'S DEATH
Finally, Plaintiffs claim that Garden Drive-In was negligent in relation to Stephen's death on their premises. However, Stephan died at Garden Drive-In on April 30, 2017, almost five years before the filing of this Complaint. In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for negligence claims is two years. 42 Pa. C.S. § 5524. So, any claims related to Stephan's death are very likely barred by the statute of limitations, unless an exception applies that would toll the limitations period.
I note this as a warning to Plaintiffs that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, but it can be waived. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c)(1). If they choose to refile this lawsuit, Plaintiffs will have to overcome this likely defense against Garden DriveIn.
V. CONCLUSION
Among other infirmities, Plaintiffs failed to plead how this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. When given a chance to remedy this by filing an amended complaint, Plaintiffs failed to do so. Therefore, I RECOMMEND that:
(1) Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice.
(2) The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
NOTICE OF LOCAL RULE 72.3
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.