ONLINE EXPRESS, INC. et al v. CARPEZZI LIEBERT GROUP [GLC] et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER dismissing the second amended complt. with prejudice. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 8/14/2013. (nr, )

ONLINE EXPRESS, INC. et al v. CARPEZZI LIEBERT GROUP [GLC] et al

Doc. 8

CLOSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
OSMAN N. OZSUSAMLAR,

:
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v.
:
:
TRI-STATE GENERAL INSURANCE
:
COMPANY et al.,
:
:
Defendants :
:

Civil Action No. 13-1888 (SRC)
OPINION & ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon the filing of a Amended Complaint (Docket
Entry 7) by Plaintiff Osman N. Ozsusamlar. Because Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this
lawsuit, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice.
According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is the sole owner of Online Express, Inc.,
a commercial trucking company. Plaintiff alleges that in 2004 and 2005, Online Express
purchased insurance policies for a number of commercial trucks and trailers from Defendants
David Delgado and Carpezzi Liebert Group. These policies were underwritten by Defendants
Carolina Casualty Insurance Company and Lloyd’s of London. On October 6, 2005, Plaintiff
was arrested and incarcerated on charges unrelated to his trucking business. Plaintiff claims that
he is entitled to refunds on the various insurance policies, because, presumably due to Plaintiff’s
incarceration, Online Express “didn’t use the full year worth of insurance.” (Compl. ¶ 40)
Plaintiff also claims that the insurer defendants had failed to provide the insurance coverage that

Dockets.Justia.com

had been purchased.
When in doubt, a federal district court has an independent obligation to assess its
jurisdiction and must do so whether or not raised by the parties. Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc.,
347 F.3d 72, 76-77 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429
U.S. 274, 278 (1977)). Having carefully reviewed the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that
Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the instant action. Article III of the Constitution limits federal
court jurisdiction to “Cases” and “Controversies.” To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff
must demonstrate that “(1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized
and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to speculative, that the injury
will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servcs.
(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000).
Generally, a plaintiff may satisfy Article III only by asserting his own legal rights and
interests, not those of third parties. See Potthoff v. Morin, 245 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)). A corporation is an independent legal entity
separate and apart from its sole shareholder. See United States v. Sain, 141 F.3d 463, 474 (3d
Cir. 1998). “[A] stockholder of a corporation does not acquire standing to maintain an action in
his own right . . . when the alleged injury is inflicted upon the corporation. . . .” Kauffman v.
Dreyfus Fund, Inc., 434 F.2d 727, 732 (3d Cir. 1970); see also 15-101 Moore’s Federal Practice,
Civil § 101.60[11] (“This shareholder standing rule applies even if the plaintiff is the sole
shareholder . . . .”). Plaintiff, who asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty, clearly seeks to redress an
2

injury suffered by Online Express. After all, it was Online Express, not Plaintiff, who purchased
the insurance policies in question, and any injury caused by either a failure to provide insurance
or a failure to remit a refund due under an insurance policy may only form the basis of a lawsuit
brought by Online Express. Therefore, the Court must dismiss the Complaint for lack of
standing.1
IT IS, THEREFORE, on this 13th day of August, 2013,
ORDERED that the Second Amended Complaint (Docket Entry 7) shall be and hereby is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.

1

In the event that Plaintiff wishes to re-file the instant action under the name of Online
Express, the Plaintiff should be advised that, as a corporate entity, Online Express must be
represented by licensed counsel. United States v. Cocivera, 104 F.3d 566, 572 (3d Cir. 1996)
(citing Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993)).
3