Sameer v. Right Moves 4U et al

Filing 66

ORDER on Defendant Talbot Insurance Agency's 19 Motion to Dismiss as an Improper Part Under Rule 12(B)(2), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/29/18. Defendant Talbot Insurance Agency's Terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MAHDU SAMEER,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff
v.
RIGHT MOVES 4 U,
MICHELLE FRANKLIN,
DYLAN CORTINA,
XO MOVING SYSTEMS,
CONROY REMOVALS,
FIONA CONTROY,
MONICA MCKINLEY,
TALBOT UNDERWRITING LTD,
SHIPCO TRANSPORT, and
DOES 1 thru 48,

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-886 AWI-EPG
ORDER ON DEFENDANT
TALBOT INSURANCE AGENCY’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AS AN
IMPROPER PARTY
UNDER RULE 12(B)(2)
(Doc. No. 19)

Defendants
Mahdu Sameer, appearing pro se, has alleged multiple causes of action against multiple

20

Defendants arising from a dispute over the failure to deliver her personal possessions from her

21

former residence in Fresno, CA to her current residence in New Zealand. Sameer has alleged,

22

inter alia, Talbot Insurance Agency (“Talbot Insurance”) failed to pay on a policy issued to her by

23

the insurer. Sameer served Talbot Insurance at its Massachusetts office. See Doc. No. 15.

24

Talbot Insurance now moves to dismiss all claims against it, contending Sameer has served

25

the wrong party and as such has not subjected it to the jurisdiction of the Court, and also that

26

Sameer has not stated a claim against Talbot Insurance for which relief may be granted. The

27

company contends Sameer has no policy with Talbot Insurance, which only issues insurance

28

policies in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine. See Doc. No. 19-3.

1

In her subsequent filings, Sameer appears to admit that the wrong party has been served.

2

Sameer has not formally responded to Talbot Insurance’s Motion to Dismiss. Instead, Sameer has

3

unsuccessfully attempted to serve multiple other insurance companies named “Talbot,” as well as

4

subsidiaries of Lloyd’s of London. See Doc. No’s. 41, 51, and 56. Talbot Insurance contends it

5

has no connection with these entities. See Doc. No. 42. Most recently, Sameer moved to continue

6

her March 2018 status conference in order to serve the proper party. See Doc. No. 60. Therein,

7

Sameer has attached a copy of an email from Marine Underwriters, a subsidiary of Lloyd’s, who

8

has pointed out that Sameer’s insurance contract is with Talbot Underwriting Risk Services

9

(“TURS”). See id. at Ex. 1. Purportedly, TURS may be served via any senior partner of the firm

10

Mendes & Mount, located in New York City, NY. See id. Plaintiff has requested a “[n]ew

11

Summons be issued in the name of [TURS]” as well as additional time to “properly serve the

12

defendant [TURS] latest by Mid March 2018.” See id. The Court takes these assertions by

13

Sameer that Talbot is not the proper party.

14

Given the lack of formal response from Sameer, and based on the apparent agreement of

15

Sameer and Talbot Insurance, there is no opposition to Talbot Insurance’s Motion to Dismiss.

16

Therefore, Talbot Insurance will be dismissed from this action.

17

ORDER

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

Defendants’ 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED;

20

2.

Defendant Talbot Insurance Agency, Inc. is dismissed from this case; and

21

3.

The remainder of this case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further

22

proceedings.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2