ST. LOUIS — A federal judge recently threw out a case filed by a woman representing herself in her claim against two insurance companies, saying the plaintiff failed to make her case.
"Defendants contend that plaintiff's petition fails to identify any facts which would give rise to any action against them," U.S. District Court Judge Henry Edward Autrey said in his seven-page opinion issued April 29. "The Court agrees. Nowhere in the Petition does Plaintiff set forth a short and plain statement of what she claims entitles her to relief."
Autrey granted a defense motion to dismiss. He also denied plaintiff Barbara Moore's motions for hearing, to deny dismissal, "disagree deniel [sic] dismissal," for hearing of dismissal and to "file a [sic] amended complaint."
The insurance contract case was originally filed in November by Moore in St. Louis Circuit Court against Esurance Property & Casualty and Geico Casualty Company, according to the background portion of Autrey's opinion. In January, Esurance removed the case to federal court and filed a motion for the case to be dismissed.
"Plaintiff's pro se petition consists of one handwritten page which contains one paragraph and two typed pages," Autrey said in his opinion. "Each page is notarized. While difficult to discern Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff avers in her handwritten allegations that Defendants acted 'in bad faith in an effort to mix up cars of both parties making an inconclusive deniel [sic] of insurance claim 0624100680101015."
The typed portion of Moore's complaint accused the defendant insurance companies of bad faith, fraudulent identification and negligence and receiving false information over a claim of "car accident June 11th, 2018 incunjunction [sic] of suggested robbery dated April 18th, 2018 organized by organizations."
The motion to dismiss was based on Moore's alleged failure to state a claim for which she could be entitled to damages.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," the opinion said.
Among other things, granting Moore's motion to amend her complaint "would be futile," Autrey said in his opinion.
"Here, amendment would be futile because plaintiff's allegations continue to be vague, conclusory and without any factual support," the opinion said. "The proposed amended complaint fails to set forth a short and plain statement of the action such that defendants could formulate responsive pleadings."