Mohammed Keita v. Bank of America, N.A., QBE First Insurance, and AIG Insurance (Civil Action No.: 1:17-CV-880 (ENV)(SLT)) (E.D.N.Y. August 21, 2018)

The action was one of at least 16 commenced by this pro se plaintiff, an “incessant filer of claims”, in the Southern District alone, naming various insurers, agents, banks and others as defendants.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision on multiple motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint, dismissing the case in its entirety and denying leave to amend the Complaint further.

The Amended Complaint had been filed with leave of the Court after the initial handwritten Complaint was dismissed on the motion of the defendants. A copy of the initial Complaint filed with the Court is shown in the attached link.

Defendant NGLS Insurance Services Inc. (formerly known as QBE First Insurance Agency Inc.), moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on the grounds that the Amended Complaint was insufficient to state a cause of action for fraud; that the Amended Complaint was insufficient to state a cause of action because it failed to sufficiently allege breach of contract or negligence; and that Plaintiff should not be granted leave to replead because the Amended Complaint was insufficient to state a cause of action as a whole and plaintiff had not alleged that QBE First is an insurance company. Co-defendant Bank of America also moved to dismiss on similar grounds. Co-defendant AIG Insurance had not appeared in the action.

In a comprehensive Memorandum & Order Judge Vitaliano decisively dismissed the case sua sponte. The Court showed its exasperation with the pro se plaintiff’s history as an “incessant filer of claims”, referencing the Court’s prior decision dismissing another of the same plaintiff’s many actions.

As to QBE, the Court found, “Mystifyingly, QBE is also named as a defendant. Right off the top, it is painfully obvious that even in this second go round that [plaintiff’s] amended complaint fails to set forth any factual allegations concerning QBE. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed as to that defendant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a cause of action.”

The Court agreed that the bare bones allegations failed to set forth a plausible pleading of facts required to assert any claim of trespass, breach of contract, “illegal securitization” or fraud. The Court also found that any claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, based upon allegations of damage in 2007 and trespass in 2013.

Abrams Gorelick Counsel Michael E. Gorelick and Partner Thomas R. Maeglin briefed the motion.