Cohen v. Tinsley et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge William M Nickerson on 10/5/2016. (c/m 10/5/16 bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

*

JEFFREY COHEN #58021-037, Personally
and as Sole Shareholder of RB Entertainment
Ventures, LLC

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*
*

JOHN TINSLEY
REGULATORY INSURANCE SERVICES,
INC.

*

Derendant

Civil Action No. WMN-16-3169

*
MEMORANDUM

The above-captioned case was filed on September 14, 2016, together with a Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Cohen is the sole shareholder
Ventures").

ECF No. 1 at 1.

and manager

As noted in the Complaint,

of RB Entertainment

Ventures,

LLC ("RB

According to Cohen, RB Ventures owns 99% of Indemnity

Insurance Corporation, Inc. ("lIC"), an insurance company licensed to do business as a "risk
retention group" and domiciled in the state of Delaware. Id
Cohen is no stranger to this district.

On June 5, 2015, he pled guilty to wire fraud,

aggravated identity theft, false statements, and obstructing justice (threatening an attorney). See
United States v. Cohen, Criminal No. GLR-14-0310 (D. Md.).! Cohen's criminal prosecution is
based, in part, on allegedly deceptive

statements and reports presented

to the Delaware

Department of Insurance ("DDOI"), which initiated formal delinquency proceedings and took
over the operation oflIC in 2013. Id; see also ECF No. 1-2 at pp. 1-2. Cohen now complains
that John Tinsley, a business consultant with Regulatory Insurance Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania

! Cohen is serving a 444-month sentence.

company appointed to oversee liquidation of the delinquent company, is acting improperly to
"plunder" lIC.

ECF No.1, p. 2. He asserts that he, RB Ventures, and unnamed policyholders of

lIC have been harmed by the action taken by the DDOI.

Cohen seeks money damages and

declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.c. ~ 2201, based on his claim, inter alia, that Tinsley and
his company are violating due process. ECF No. 1-1 at p. 31.
Cohen states this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~ 1331
(federal question jurisdiction) and civil rights jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ~ 1343 and 42 U.S.C.
~ 1983.2 Whether the Complaint states a federal question or a civil rights violation is unclear.
What is apparent is that this district has no true nexus to a claim involving actions undertaken by
an individual and business appointed by the Delaware Court of Chancery and/or the DDOI and
Insurance Commissioner to assist in liquidating an insurer domiciled in Delaware.
Under 28 U.S.C. ~ 1391(b), "a civil action wherein jurisdiction
diversity of citizenship may ...

is founded only on

be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant

resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that
is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject
to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the
action may otherwise be brought." Under 28 U.S.C. ~ 1391(b), a civil action that is not founded
on diversity of citizenship may be brought only in the judicial district where any of the
defendants reside, if all defendants reside in the same State or a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, except as otherwise
provided by law.

He also contends this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims
under 28 U.S.C. ~ 1367. ECF NO.1 at p.2.

2

2

"The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division
or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice transfer such case to any district or
division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. 91406(a).

The named Defendants

reside in Pennsylvania; the events described in the Complaint, however, occurred as a result of
an investigation by Delaware's insurance commissioner and are under the supervision of the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

In light of these allegations, it is clear that this Court is not the

appropriate venue for this action.

Because there is considerable uncertainty as to whether the

appropriate venue is a Delaware state court or a different federal district court, this case will be
dismissed rather than transferred.3
A separate order will issue.

lsi
William M. Nickerson
Senior United States District Judge

Dated: October 5, 2016

Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF 2) will be granted, subject to
the partial payments mandated by 28 u.s.c. 9 1915(b)(l).
3

3