JACOBSEN et al v. HARTFORD INS. COMPANY FLOOD & HOME (SANDY)

Filing 322

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that this matter is Dismissed with Prejudice and Plaintiff's 295 and 297 Motions are Denied as moot; Plaintiff's oral application for leave to amend the complaint is Denied and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this file. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 05/05/2020. (jmh)

Case 3:14-cv-03094-PGS-TJB Document 322 Filed 05/05/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 3817

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ROBERT JACOBSEN, et al.,
Civil Action No.: 14-cv-03094 (PGS)(TJB)
Plaintiffs,
v.

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

HARTFORD INS. CO. FLOOD & HOME,
Defendant.

This matter returns to the Court after the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit vacated and remanded this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff Robert Jacobsen’s1 (“Plaintiff” or
“Jacobsen”) claims against Defendant Property and Casualty Insurance Company of HartfordProperty (“Defendant” or “Hartford-Property”) for Mr. Jacobsen’s failure to appear at trial. (See
Opinion at 6-9, ECF No. 307-2). On remand, the Court was instructed to consider the factors set
forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). (Id.). The
Third Circuit noted: “[N]othing in our opinion prevents the District Court from again dismissing
Jacobsen’s claims if it concludes that dismissal is warranted under Poulis.” (Id. at 8).
By way of background, this matter was set for trial on March 11, 2019. Mr. Jacobsen did
not appear. As such, Hartford-Property made an oral application on the record for dismissal on
the grounds that Mr. Jacobson failed to appear and prosecute. (March 11, 2019 Trial Transcript
(“Tr.”) at 3:19-6:4, ECF No. 309). After Hartford-Property set forth its reasons for dismissal, the
Court reviewed and considered the Poulis factors. (Id. at 6:6-10:12). For the reasons set forth on

1

Mr. Jacobsen advised the Court that his wife, Plaintiff Carol Jacobsen, passed away on May 3, 2019.

Case 3:14-cv-03094-PGS-TJB Document 322 Filed 05/05/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 3818

the record, the Court decided that the Poulis factors weighed in favor of dismissal. (Id.). Thus,
the action was dismissed at that time.
Since I considered the Poulis factors, the Third Circuit’s decision on appeal was a bit
surprising. Evidently, the Third Circuit did not receive the transcript of the March 11, 2019
proceedings. There may have been several reasons as to why the Third Circuit did not receive the
transcript, including that: (1) Mr. Jacobsen did not order and file the transcript with his appeal; and
(2) Hartford-Property did not notice Mr. Jacobsen’s failure to do so. (See Def. Br. at 2, ECF No.
311). In any event, the Third Circuit was not privy to my discussion of the Poulis factors, which
served as my basis for dismissal of the action.
On remand, the Court entered on the docket an Order to Show Cause ordering the parties
to address the issues of whether the Court can rely on its previous analysis of the Poulis factors,
and whether this case should be dismissed based on that prior analysis. (ECF No. 308). The Court
held oral argument on April 15, 2020. At that time, Mr. Jacobsen indicated that he desired to
amend the complaint to assert: (1) class action allegations on behalf of all similarly situated
homeowners; (2) allegations against a new defendant, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (“FEMA”); and (3) allegations of fraud against Hartford-Property and FEMA. For the
reasons stated herein, this action is dismissed with prejudice and Mr. Jacobsen’s application to
amend the complaint is denied.
I.
As a threshold matter, the Court adopts its rationale set forth on the record on March 11,
2019, (see Tr. at 6:6-10:12), and supplements that analysis by adopting Hartford-Property’s
analysis of the Poulis factors as set forth in its brief, (see Def. Br. at 12-17).2 Since this matter
As one exception, the Court does not adopt Hartford-Property’s analysis of the Poulis factor concerning
the meritoriousness of Jacobsen’s claims. As observed by the Third Circuit, “the meritoriousness of
2

2

Case 3:14-cv-03094-PGS-TJB Document 322 Filed 05/05/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 3819

shall be dismissed with prejudice, Mr. Jacobsen’s pending motions for settlement conferences,
(see ECF Nos. 295, 297), are denied as moot.
II.
With regard to Mr. Jacobsen’s motion to amend the complaint, it is denied for several
reasons, including: (1) that this case has been pending for nearly six years; (2) Mr. Jacobsen
indicated that he wished to assert a new legal theory of fraud; and (3) Mr. Jacobsen indicated that
he wished to assert class action allegations, which would necessarily lead to extensive discovery
and motion practice. For these reasons, inter alia, permitting amendment would result in
substantial prejudice to Hartford-Property, and, as such, the motion is denied. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a); Heyl & Patterson Int’l, Inc. v. F. D. Rich Hous. of Virgin Islands, Inc., 663 F.2d 419,
425 (3d Cir. 1981) (citing Cornell & Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 573
F.2d 820, 823 (3d Cir. 1978)).

claims for Poulis purposes is decided on the pleadings, not under the summary judgment standard, and
Hartford-Property has conceded that Jacobsen’s claims have sufficient merit to warrant a trial under that
standard . . .” (Opinion at 8, n.7). However, “not all of the Poulis factors need be satisfied in order to
dismiss a complaint.” Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). And for
the reasons set forth on the record on March 11, 2019, a majority of the Poulis factors weigh in favor of
dismissal. (Tr. at 6:6-10:12).
3

Case 3:14-cv-03094-PGS-TJB Document 322 Filed 05/05/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 3820

ORDER
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on its Order to Show Cause (ECF No.
308); and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum; and for the reasons set forth
on the record on March 11, 2019 and on April 15, 2020; and for the reasons submitted orally and
in writing by Defendant Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford-Property; and for
good cause otherwise having been shown;
IT IS on this 5th day of May, 2020,
ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for settlement conferences (ECF Nos. 295, 297) are
DENIED as moot; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s oral application for leave to amend the complaint is DENIED;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is direct to close this file; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and
Order to Mr. Jacobsen.

s/Peter G. Sheridan
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

4