Lifchits v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co.

PAVEL LIFCHITS, Plaintiff, v. INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.,and KEY 4U TRANSPORTATION CORP., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-12637-ADB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

August 17, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

BURROUGHS, D.J.

On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff Pavel Lifchits ("Plaintiff"), appearing pro se, filed a complaint against Integon National Insurance Co. ("Integon") and Key 4U Transportation Corp. ("Key 4U") (collectively, "Defendants") for damages arising out of an April 9, 2018 car accident in Queens, New York involving Plaintiff's vehicle and a school bus operated by Key 4U and insured by Integon. [ECF No. 1; ECF No. 24]. Plaintiff seeks $4,500.00 for damage to his vehicle and $78,000.00 for his "loss of health" as a result of the accident. [ECF No. 24 at 6]. Presently before the Court are the Defendants' respective motions to dismiss. [ECF Nos. 38, 40]. For the reasons set forth below, Integon's motion, [ECF No. 38], is GRANTED and Key4U's motion, [ECF No. 40], is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from the complaint, [ECF No. 1], and amended complaint, [ECF No. 24], the factual allegations of which are assumed to be true when considering a motion to dismiss, Ruivo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 766 F.3d 87, 90 (1st Cir. 2014). Typically, an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint, however, "that does not mean that the original complaint is a nullity and can be relevant for no purpose whatever." Ultra-Temp Corp. v. Advanced Vacuum Sys., 194 F.R.D. 378, 382 (D. Mass. 2000); see also Fiorillo v. United Techs. Corp., No. 13-cv-01287, 2015 WL 5797010, at *1 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2015) ("[T]he Court may still credit admissions in the original complaint and attached exhibits." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Additionally, because Plaintiff is acting pro se, the Court holds the complaint to a less stringent standard. See Bobola v. F/V Expectation, 204 F. Supp. 3d 382, 387 (D. Mass. 2016) ("A document filed by a pro se party 'is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007))).

Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to establish this Court's jurisdiction or explain why venue is proper here. See [ECF No. 24]. In addition, the amended complaint contains limited details about the accident at issue. See [id.]. Accordingly, the Court will also review Plaintiff's original complaint, [ECF No. 1], and the exhibits attached thereto to discern the factual allegations that support Plaintiff's claims and that are relevant to jurisdiction and venue. See Barrigas v. United States, No. 17-cv-10232, 2018 WL 1244780, at *6 (D. Mass. Mar. 9, 2018) ("A district court may examine facts outside the complaint to determine whether its venue is proper." (quoting Universal Trading & Inv. Co. v. Bureau of Representing Ukrainian Interest in Int'l & Foreign Cts., 898 F. Supp. 2d 301, 317 (D. Mass. 2012))); Ultra-Temp Corp., 194 F.R.D. at 382 ("[C]laims alleged in an original complaint and not contained in an amended complaint are waived.").

On April 9, 2018, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Plaintiff was traveling on Interstate 678 Northbound in Queens, New York, when his automobile was struck by a Key 4U-operated bus asit merged onto the highway from the Van Wyck Expressway. [ECF No. 24 at 5; ECF No. 1-2 at 2 ("Police Report")]. Plaintiff alleges that his right forward fender, bumper cover, mud protector, wheel, and headlight were damaged in the collision and seeks relief for those damages in the amount of $4,500.00. [ECF No. 24 at 5-6]. Immediately following the collision, Plaintiff could not exit his vehicle for five to seven minutes because he was in shock from the accident. [ECF No. 1 at 7]. At the time of the collision, Plaintiff was eighty-eight years old. [ECF No. 7 at 1].

Plaintiff experienced long-term side effects from the collision, including "periodic attacks of nausea" where vomiting occurred, sometimes containing blood. [ECF No. 7 at 1]. Prior to the accident, Plaintiff had rarely experienced stomach pains or nausea. [Id.]. As a result of the nausea and vomiting, Plaintiff's family doctor suggested he visit a specialist, where he discovered that he had a stomach ulcer for which he was prescribed medication. [ECF No. 7 at 1; ECF No. 7-2 at 1; ECF No. 7-3]. Because his symptoms appeared four to five weeks after the collision and ulcers can be brought on by stress, Plaintiff alleges that the collision was the likely cause of his stomach ulcer. [ECF No. 7 at 2]. Plaintiff therefore seeks relief in the amount of $78,000.00 for his "loss of health" from the ulcer. [ECF No. 24 at 6-7].

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on December 26, 2018. [ECF No. 1]. On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause as to whether his complaint met the $75,000.00 amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. See [ECF No. 6]. Plaintiff replied on February 25, 2019 by submitting medical documents revealing that he was diagnosed with an ulcer shortly after the accident. See [ECF No. 7]. On April 8, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint for failing to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement because the medical billsPlaintiff provided did not exceed the $75,000.00 required for subject matter jurisdiction. See [ECF No. 9]. Plaintiff appealed on May 1, 2019, [ECF No. 13], and the First Circuit, finding ambiguity in the record concerning how Plaintiff calculated his "loss of health" claim, remanded back to this Court on August 16, 2019, [ECF No. 21 at 2]. Upon remand, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint "in which the monetary relief . . . is itemized to allow the Court to determine the amount plaintiff claims for each of the following: 'loss of health,' damages to his car, and litigation expenses." [ECF No. 22].

On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff amended his complaint and requested $82,500.00 in damages, including $4,500.00 for damages related to his vehicle and $78,000.00 for his "loss of health." [ECF No. 24 at 6-7]. Plaintiff did not renew his request for litigation expenses. See [id.]. Further, Plaintiff cited case law in support of his contention that it is difficult to estimate the ongoing impact of an accident on a plaintiff's health. [Id. at 7]. Defendants filed their answers on December 16, 2019, [ECF Nos. 31, 32].¹ On January 10, 2020, Integon filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [ECF No. 38]. On the same day, Key 4U filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and improper venue. [ECF No. 40]. Plaintiff filed oppositions on January 27, 2020 and February 10, 2020. [ECF Nos. 47, 48, 51].

II. INTEGON'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Integon argues that Plaintiff has both failed to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction and to state a claim under both Massachusetts and New York law. [ECF No. 41 at 3, 5].

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must determine whether the facts as alleged in the complaint, "taken at face value," support subject matter jurisdiction. Gordo-González v. United States, 873 F.3d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 2017). The Court "appl[ies] a standard of review 'similar to that accorded [to] a dismissal for failure to state a claim' under subsection 12(b)(6)." Rodriguez v. Mass. Parole Bd., No. 16-cv-11113, 2017 WL 706597, at *2 (D. Mass. Feb. 22, 2017) (quoting Menge v. N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co., 905 F. Supp. 2d 414, 416 (D.R.I. 2012)). In diversity actions, the existence of subject matter jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

"There are two methods for challenging jurisdiction based on diversity." Callahan v. Shepherd, No. 17-cv-10508, 2018 WL 1041542, at *1 (D. Mass. Feb. 23, 2018). Here, Integon raises "a 'sufficiency challenge' (or a 'facial challenge'), in which [it] challenges the sufficiency of the pleaded jurisdictional facts . . . ." Id. (citing Valentin v. Hosp. Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 363 (1st Cir. 2001)). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, "the [C]ourt must credit the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations . . . draw all reasonable inferences from them in [plaintiff's] favor, and dispose of the challenge accordingly." Id. (quoting Valentin, 254 F.3d at 363).

1. Discussion

Integon contends that dismissal is warranted if it is clear to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than the required amount in controversy. [ECF No. 41 at 5 (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938))]. According to the First Circuit,

[u]nder St. Paul, a plaintiff's general allegation of damages that meet the amount requirement suffices unless questioned by the opposing party or the court. Once the damages allegation is challenged, however, the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction has the burden of alleging with sufficient particularity facts indicating that it is not a legal certainty that the claim involves less than the jurisdictional amount. A party may meet this burden by amending the pleadings or by submitting affidavits.

Spielman v. Genzyme Corp., 251 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Although Plaintiff does not directly address this challenge in his opposition, see [ECF No. 51], Plaintiff's amended complaint (filed in response to the First Circuit's remand and this Court's Order on the same issue, see [ECF Nos. 21, 22]), provided the Court with an itemization of the damages sought for vehicle repairs and loss of health, [ECF No. 24 at 5-6].

After...