UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Griffiths

v. Civil No. 08-cv-507-JL

Lloyds of London, and

Stokes, Croton, and Wilson

O R D E R

Joseph Griffiths has filed this action, alleging a breach of

his homeowner’s insurance contract by defendant, pursuant to the

diversity jurisdiction of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2)

(providing for jurisdiction in this Court for certain cases where

the parties are citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a

foreign state). Because Griffiths is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis, the matter has come before me for preliminary

review to determine, among other things, whether or not the

complaint states a claim upon which relief might be granted. See

United States District Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(1)(B) (authorizing magistrate judge to conduct

preliminary review where complaint is filed pro se and in forma

pauperis). 

Case 1:08-cv-00507-JL Document 3 Filed 03/03/09 Page 1 of 6
2

Standard of Review

Under this Court’s local rules, when a plaintiff commences

an action pro se and in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge is

directed to conduct a preliminary review. LR 4.3(d)(2). In

conducting the preliminary review, the Court construes pro se

pleadings liberally, however inartfully pleaded. See Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (following

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) and Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) to construe pro se pleadings

liberally in favor of the pro se party). “The policy behind

affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation is that if

they present sufficient facts, the court may intuit the correct

cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled.” See Castro v.

United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003) (noting that courts may

construe pro se pleadings so as to avoid inappropriately

stringent rules and unnecessary dismissals of claims); Ahmed v.

Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997). All of the

factual assertions made by a pro se plaintiff and inferences

reasonably drawn therefrom must be accepted as true. See id.

This review ensures that pro se pleadings are given fair and

meaningful consideration.

Case 1:08-cv-00507-JL Document 3 Filed 03/03/09 Page 2 of 6
3

Background

Although the complaint is scant in detail, reading it

liberally and construing it generally, as I must, I find that it

reveals the following facts. Griffiths owned a home in Groveton,

New Hampshire, that burned down on December 19, 2007. The home

was insured by Lloyds of London (“Lloyds”), and Griffiths’ policy

was fully paid. Griffiths asserts that although his claim was

valid, Lloyds refused to pay it. Griffiths values his loss at

$384,000. Griffiths asserts that Lloyds, and its partner,

Stokes, Croton, and Wilson, have relied on lies and inaccurate

information to improperly deny his claim, in breach of his

homeowner’s insurance contract.

Discussion

“Under the common law of New Hampshire, ‘[a] breach of

contract occurs when there is a failure without legal excuse to

perform any promise which forms the whole or part of a

contract.’” Sabinson v. Trs. of Dartmouth Coll., 2007 WL

4191943, at *17 (D.N.H. Nov. 21, 2007) (quoting Bronstein v. GZA

GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 140 N.H. 253, 255 (1995) (internal

quotations omitted)). Presuming, for purposes of preliminary

review, that a valid contract existed between Griffiths and

Case 1:08-cv-00507-JL Document 3 Filed 03/03/09 Page 3 of 6
4

defendants, Griffiths has alleged that defendants improperly, and

without a legal reason to do so, refused and failed to perform

their duties to him under his homeowners’ insurance contract when

they failed to pay his claim for his $384,000 property loss. 

Accordingly, I find that Griffiths has stated the minimum facts

necessary to state a claim for a breach of contract under New

Hampshire law. I further find that this Court’s diversity

jurisdiction has been properly invoked. See 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a)(2) (allowing for subject matter jurisdiction over civil

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the

action is between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of

a foreign state).

Conclusion

Without commenting on the merits of the complaint, I find

that plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be

granted. Accordingly, I order that the complaint be served on

defendants. My review of the file indicates that plaintiff has

filed summons forms for each defendant. The Clerk’s office shall

issue the summonses against defendants. As the defendants are

foreign corporations, I direct service under Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(h)(1) & (2). Specifically, the Clerk’s office is directed to

Case 1:08-cv-00507-JL Document 3 Filed 03/03/09 Page 4 of 6
5

forward to the United States Marshal for the District of New

Hampshire (the “U.S. Marshal’s office”) the summonses and copies

of the complaint (document no. 1) and this Order. Upon receipt

of the necessary documentation, the U.S. Marshal’s office shall

effect service in this judicial district upon the defendants’

attorney, Andrew Ranx of Boyle, Morrissey, and Campo, 650 Elm

Street, Suite 401, Manchester, New Hampshire. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4(h)(1)(B) (allowing service on a foreign corporation within a

judicial district of the United States by delivery of a copy of

the summons and complaint to an agent authorized by law or

appointment to receive service of process). Further, I direct

the Clerk’s office to mail copies of the complaint (document no.

1) and this Order to the defendants at the addresses provided on

the summons forms, by any method that requires a signed receipt. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(2) (authorizing service of a foreign

corporation at a place not within any judicial district of the

United States, in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving

an individual in a foreign country); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(C)(ii)

(allowing service of an individual in a foreign country by mail

addressed by the Clerk of Court, by any form that requires a

signed receipt).

Case 1:08-cv-00507-JL Document 3 Filed 03/03/09 Page 5 of 6
6

Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within twenty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on

the defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or

their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 3, 2009

cc: Joseph Griffiths, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00507-JL Document 3 Filed 03/03/09 Page 6 of 6