Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00688/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00688-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allstate Insurance Company
Defendant
Lia Charlene Faalevao
Plaintiff
Timothy Davenport Mechem
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIA CHARLENE FAALEVAO, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

TIMOTHY DAVENPORT MECHEM )

AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:10-cv-00688 OWW GSA

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS

AGAINST ALLSTATE INSURANCE

COMPANY

Plaintiff Lia Charlene Faalevao (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se and proceeding in forma

pauperis, filed a complaint on April 19, 2010, naming Timothy Davenport Mechem and Allstate

Insurance Company as defendants. (Doc. 1.)

On June 10, 2010, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint and

permitting her to either (1) file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies with regard to her

claims against Allstate Insurance Company, or (2) advise the Court in writing that she wished to

proceed with her negligence claim against Timothy Davenport Mechem only. (Doc. 6 at 6.) 

On July 8, 2010, the Court received written notice from Plaintiff indicating her wish to

proceed with regard to her claim against Mechem only. Plaintiff indicated she would not be

filing an amended complaint as a result. (Doc. 9.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court

1

Case 1:10-cv-00688-OWW -GSA Document 10 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

now recommends that this action be dismissed against Allstate Insurance Company without leave

to amend. Contemporaneous with this recommendation, the Court has issued an order directing

Plaintiff to file USM-285 forms regarding service of process of Timothy Davenport Mechem.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff’s April 19, 2010, complaint alleges that Defendant Timothy Davenport

Mechem’s vehicle struck her vehicle on April 17, 2008, and that the resulting collision caused

her personal injuries, as well as property damage to her vehicle. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts

“whiplash injuries in her neck, shoulders and back areas . . ..” (Doc. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that

Mechem was insured by Defendant Allstate Insurance Company, and that Allstate paid Plaintiff’s

property damage claim in the amount of $5,329.49. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant Allstate offered to settle her personal injury claim for $4,700, refusing to accept her

offers to settle for various amounts between $15,000 and $70,000. (Doc. 1 at 3-4.) Plaintiff’s

complaint seeks $200,000 in damages for soft tissue injuries and past pain and suffering,

$300,000 in damages for future pain and suffering, and $100,000 in punitive damages. (Doc. 1 at

5-6.) 

B. Screening Standard

Pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct

an initial review of the complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The Court must dismiss a

complaint or portion thereof if it determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,”

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the

complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies

of the complaint can be cured by amendment.

A 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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing

2

Case 1:10-cv-00688-OWW -GSA Document 10 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its

face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While legal conclusions

can provide a framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. Iqbal,

129 S.Ct. at 1950. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Iqbal

at 1949.

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. V. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief. The

underlying requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” of the claim being asserted and the

“grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957); Yamaguchi v.

United States Department of Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9th Cir. 1997). 

C. Analysis Regarding Allstate-Related Claims

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Allstate acted wrongfully or improperly in refusing to

accept her various settlement offers concerning her personal injuries. However, Plaintiff cannot

state a claim against Allstate because it has no duty to settle with Plaintiff. An insurer owes a

duty to settle to its insured, rather than to the injured claimant. See Murphy v. Allstate Insurance

Company, 17 Cal.3d 937, 941, 132 Cal.Rptr. 424, 553 P.2d 584 (1976). Therefore, Allstate’s

obligation or duty is owed to Mechem, rather than Plaintiff. Thus, permitting Plaintiff any

further opportunity to amend her complaint in this regard would be futile.

To the degree Plaintiff’s complaint could be interpreted to allege bad faith on the part of

Allstate, she must establish that:

(1) The insurance company had facts to demonstrate that liability of their insured had

become reasonably clear; (2) Knowing of these facts the insurance company did not act in

good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement with the claimant; and (3)

There has been a settlement or a final determination that the insured is liable to the

claimant.

3

Case 1:10-cv-00688-OWW -GSA Document 10 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 148 Cal.App.3d 1179, 1185, 196

Cal.Rptr. 474 (1983). Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to establish the foregoing.

Moreover, addressing the third requirement of a bad faith claim, in Moradi-Shalal v.

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Companies, 46 Cal.3d 287, 306, 250 Cal.Rptr. 116, 758 P.2d 58

(1988), the California Supreme Court expressly stated that “settlement is an insufficient

conclusion of the underlying action: there must be a conclusive judicial determination of the

insured’s liability before the third party can succeed in an action against the insurer . . ..”

Plaintiff has failed to allege a bad faith claim against Allstate, and plainly, any amendment would

be futile.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, and Plaintiff’s written election to proceed only against Defendant

Timothy Davenport Mechem, the Court RECOMMENDS that the claims against Allstate

Insurance Company be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(l). In

light of Plaintiff’s written election filed July 8, 2010, objections to these findings are not

anticipated. Nevertheless, if Plaintiff wishes to object, she must do so within fifteen (15) days

after being served. Any objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order dismissing the claims

against Allstate Insurance Company. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 13, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:10-cv-00688-OWW -GSA Document 10 Filed 07/14/10 Page 4 of 4