AMERICAN MODERN SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY v. CAMMELOT

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING 15 Motion to Dismiss; For the reasons set forth, the claims against KPDE and Pinkus are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The caption in this case shall be conformed as set forth above. Copy mailed via U.S. mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/10/2011.(CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
AMERICAN MODERN SELECT
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CRAIG S. CAMMELOT,
Defendant.
______________________________________
CRAIG S. CAMMELOT,
Counterclaimant,
vs.
AMERICAN MODERN SELECT
INSURANCE COMPANY,

)
)
)
)
)
) CAUSE NO. 1:11-cv-571-WTL-DKL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Counterdefendant.
_________________________________________
CRAIG S. CAMMELOT,
)
)
Third-Party Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TERRY HERSHEY, et al.,
)
)
Third-Party Defendants.
)
ENTRY ON MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Kopka, Pinkus, Dolin &
Eads, LLC (“KPDE”) and Gene A. Pinkus in which they seek dismissal of the claims asserted
against them by Craig S. Cammelot. Cammelot has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss,
and the time for doing so has expired. The Court, being duly advised, GRANTS the motion to

dismiss for the reasons set forth below.
Plaintiff American Modern Select Insurance Company (“American Modern”) filed this
declaratory judgment action against Defendant Cammelot asserting that it owes Cammelot
nothing on a claim he made under his homeowners insurance policy because, it alleges,
Cammelot failed to cooperate in the investigation of his claim. In addition to his answer to the
complaint, Cammelot, who is appearing pro se in this matter, filed a “Counter Cause of Action”
against American Modern. So far so good. However, Cammelot also asserts his “counter cause
of action” against four additional defendants, including KPDE and Pinkus. Clearly Cammelot’s
claims against these new defendants are not counterclaims, but are in fact third-party claims,1
and the Court will consider them as such.
KPDE and Pinkus now move to dismiss the third-party claims against them pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Court agrees that
dismissal is appropriate. While Cammelot names KPDE in the caption of his “counter cause of
action,” he makes no factual assertions relating to it in the body of his pleading. Accordingly, he
has failed to assert a cause of action against KPDE. Cammelot’s only assertion relating to
Pinkus is that found in ¶ 13, which reads “That American Modern Select Insurance, by and
through it’s [sic.] attorner [sic.] Gene Pinkus threatened Eric Wilson to not co-operate with me
or His contract would be voided. Clearly witness tampering.” The Court agrees with Pinkus that
this is not sufficient to state a claim against him.
For the reasons set forth above, the claims against KPDE and Pinkus are dismissed

1

It is not clear that the new defendants were properly served as required by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1), but KPDE and Pinkus nonetheless have appeared and filed the
instant motion.
2

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The caption in this case shall be
conformed as set forth above.
SO ORDERED: 08/09/2011

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Copy via United States Mail to:
CRAIG S. CAMMELOT
1946 N. DeQuincy St.
Indianapolis, IN 46218
Copies to all counsel of record via electronic notification

3