United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
February 23, 2016, Sylvia Emiabata (“Plaintiff”)
allegedly became involved in a car accident in Dickson,
Tennessee. Compl. ECF No. 1, at 3. That accident allegedly
resulted in a claim with Farmers Insurance Corporation
Insurance Company or Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance
Company (“Defendants”). Compl. at 1, 4.
November 8, 2018, Ms. Emiabata filed this action, alleging
state law claims of bad-faith dealing, negligence, breach of
contract, vicarious liability, and unjust enrichment. Compl.
at 4-6. Ms. Emiabata claims that she is a resident of
Connecticut, that Defendants are citizens of California and
Texas, and that this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Compl. at 1-2.
January 30, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss the case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, insufficient process,
lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, and improper venue. Mot. to
Dismiss, ECF No. 12.
April 15, 2019, Ms. Emiabata moved to amend her Complaint.
ECF No. 27.
reasons below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is
GRANTED, ECF No. 12, and Plaintiff's
motion to amend is DENIED, ECF No. 27.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
about February 23, 2016, while traveling on Interstate
Highway 40 in Dickson, Tennessee, another driver allegedly
almost hit Ms. Emiabata. Compl. at 3. She allegedly lost
control of her vehicle and drove into a ditch. Id.
Ms. Emiabata allegedly had to go the hospital, and, once
there, gave a statement to the police. Id. She also
allegedly reported the incident to her insurer, Farmers
Insurance. Compl. at 3; see also Farmers Ins.,
“Auto Ins. Renewal Offer” (Feb. 19-Aug. 19, 2016
Policy Period) (“Ins. Policy”), Def. Ex. A, ECF
No. 12 at 22. Ms. Emiabata alleges that Farmers Insurance
“failed to properly investigate the accident . . .
undu[ly] delay[ed], refused to defend and refused to make a
reasonable settlement offer.” Compl. at 3-4.
November 8, 2018, Ms. Emiabata filed her Complaint against
Farmers Insurance Corporation Insurance Company and Farmers
Texas Country Mutual Insurance Company. Compl, ECF No. 1.
January 30, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss the case under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2),
12(b)(3), 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 1406. Mot.
to Dismiss, ECF No. 12; Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (b)(2),
(b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(6); 28 U.S.C. § 1406; see
also Suppl. to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 14. In support
of its motion, Defendant filed the relevant insurance policy
and numerous documents related to the state citizenship of
Ms. Emiabata and Defendants, including filings from an
allegedly similar action in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma in early 2018, ECF No.
12 at 58-146.
April 15, 2019, Ms. Emiabata opposed Defendants' motion
to dismiss. Pl. Mem. in Opp. to Defs. Mot. to Dismiss
(“Pl. Opp.”), ECF No. 26. Ms. Emiabata also moved
to amend her Complaint. Pl. Mot. to Amend Compl., ECF No. 27;
April 29, 2019, Defendants responded to Ms. Emiabata's
objection, Defs.' Reply to Pl.'s Obj. to Mot. to
Dismiss, ECF No. 28, and objected to Ms. Emiabata's
motion to amend the Complaint, Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s
Mot. to Amend Compl., ECF No. 29.
23, 2019, the Court convened a hearing on the pending
motions. Min. Entry., ECF No. 34.
the hearing, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to submit
additional evidence regarding her residency in the State of
Connecticut. Order, ECF No. 35. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff
submitted additional evidence regarding her residency. Pl.
Mot. in Resp. to Submit Additional Ev. Pursuant to the Court
Grants Pl. Leave, ECF No. 36.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Any claim that fails
“to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted” will be dismissed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In
reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), a court applies a
“plausibility standard” guided by “two
working principles.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id.; see also Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“While a
complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does
not need detailed factual allegations . . . a plaintiff's
obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” (internal citations
omitted)). Second, “only a complaint that states a
plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Thus, the
complaint must contain “factual amplification . . . to
render a claim plausible.” Arista Records LLC v.
Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting
Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 589 F.3d 542, 546 (2d Cir.
se complaints are “construed liberally and
interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest.” Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399,
403 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470
F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)); Teichmann v. New
York, 769 F.3d 821, 825 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Although
we liberally construe Teichmann's pro se amended
complaint, we still require that he plead facts sufficient to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”) (citing Triestman, 470 F.3d at 474,
and quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) (internal
quotation marks omitted); Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local
40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Because
Fowlkes appeared pro se before the District Court, he is
‘entitled to special solicitude'. . . . At the same
time, a pro se complaint must allege ‘enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'”) (quoting Triestman, 470 F.3d at
477; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
reviewing a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), the court takes all factual allegations in the
complaint as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The court also views the allegations in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and draws all inferences in the
plaintiff's favor. Cohen v. S.A.C. Trading
Corp., 711 F.3d 353, 359 (2d Cir. 2013); see also
York v. Ass'n of the Bar of the City of New York,
286 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir.) (“On a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim, we construe the ...