Darrius Core v. National General Insurance et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DARRIUS CORE, Plaintiff, v. 1:25CV939 NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE et al., Defendants.

ORDER, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on pro A. First Complaint se plaintiff Darrius Core’s application The first complaint names Philly Auto to proceed in forma pauperis. See Inc., National General Insurance, and Docket Entry 1. For the reasons set Lendbuzz Funding LLC as forth below, Core’s application is defendants. Docket Entry 2 at 2–3. It granted for the limited purpose of claims that Philly Auto Inc. and allowing the Court to consider a National General Insurance recommendation of dismissal for lack mishandled Core’s personal of subject matter jurisdiction and information. See Docket Entry 2 at 4. failure to state a claim.

The complaint specifies neither what I. BACKGROUND information the defendants mishandled nor how they mishandled Core has filed two complaints. Docket it, other than to accuse them of Entries 2, 5. The first complaint “allowing a third party under a data remains the operative one because breach to obtain/retrieve [Core’s] Core did not seek the defendants’ personal information without [Core] consent or the Court’s permission to signing an opted-out [sic] notice.” Id. amend, and the time had passed for him to be able to amend on his own The first complaint also claims that accord. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. National General Insurance However, this Recommendation “forc[ed]” Core into a fraudulent considers both to conclude that insurance contract despite Core retroactively granting leave to amend already having insurance. Id. Core would be fruitless. does not further explain what he means by this. He alleges that responding to the contract that Lendbuzz Funding LLC “also knew became violated. National about this fraudulent contract by General Insurance et, al, forced allowing [Core] to sign under an I (the plaintiff) to get rid of the insurance company [even though [blank space] so that I could Core was] already insured.” Id. have a better credit record, while the other corporations Core states that the defendants (Lendbuzz Funding LLC, et, al.) violated the due process clause of the and Philly Auto Inc., et, al., Fourteenth Amendment, “42 Pa.C.S. tasked to protect I (the subsections 5525(8),” and “13 Pa.C.S. plaintiff’s) personal subsections 2725.” Id. at 3. He claims information. “mental injury by knowing that [his] vehicle can be taken because of a Id. at 3. fraudulent insurance contract” and Core again claims that the defendants “physical injury because [he] is violated the due process clause of the working more hours so that [his] Fourteenth Amendment, but instead vehicle won’t get taken because of of claiming violations of Pennsylvania higher rates to pay.” Id. at 5. Core law, he now claims violations of “NC requests $1 million in damages per General Statute § 1-52(5).” Id. at 2. defendant. Id. His claimed injuries and damages B. Second Complaint remain unchanged. Id. at 4.

Core filed his second complaint on a II. DISCUSSION form from the United States District Jurisdiction “may (or, more precisely, Court for the Eastern District of must) be raised sua sponte by the Pennsylvania. Docket Entry 5 at 1. He court” if in doubt. Brickwood names the same three defendants, Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g, plus Wells Fargo. Id. at 2.

Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir. The second complaint’s description of 2004); accord. Mebane v. GKN the defendants’ misconduct, in its Driveline N. Am., Inc., 499 F. Supp. entirety, is as follows: 3d 220, 229 (M.D.N.C. 2020). Federal courts have original jurisdiction over I (the plaintiff) was forced to cases involving a federal question or pay extra on my insurance and diversity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. warranty under the financing Federal courts may also exercise terms of the contract. I (the supplemental jurisdiction over state plaintiff) went into hardship law claims that are closely related to paying on the vehicle by claims over which the court has working extra on this original jurisdiction. See § 1367(a). fraudulent contract. I (the But if a court dismisses the claims plaintiff) is receiving robo calls over which it has original jurisdiction, from National General et, al. it may also dismiss the claims over and other (defendants) for not which it would have had Union v. LTD Fin. Servs., LP, 972 supplemental jurisdiction. § F.3d 344, 352 (4th Cir. 2020).

1367(c)(3).

Here, Core has sufficiently alleged Additionally, the Court must dismiss neither element. Although Core a case filed in forma pauperis if it fails claims far more than $75,000 in to state a claim on which relief may be damages, he has alleged no facts that granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). make such a high damages award To state a claim, “a complaint must plausible. See Docket Entry 2 at 5; contain sufficient factual matter, Docket Entry 5 at 4. And Core lists a accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to Pennsylvania address for both himself relief that is plausible on its face.’” and Philly Auto Inc., Docket Entry 2 at Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 2; Docket Entry 5 at 1–2, effectively (2009). That is, a plaintiff must make alleging that he shares citizenship factual allegations that are “enough to with a defendant. raise a right to relief above the Accordingly, the Court has no speculative level.” See Bell Atlantic jurisdiction over Core’s suit by way of Corp., 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) diversity. (citation modified). A pro se plaintiff’s complaint must be construed liberally B. To the Extent Core Alleges in their favor. See Jehovah v. Clarke, Federal Question Jurisdiction, 798 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir. 2015). He Fails to State a Constitutional Claim.

Here, Core does not sufficiently allege diversity jurisdiction, and to the Federal question jurisdiction exists extent Core is alleging federal for “all civil actions arising under” question jurisdiction, he fails to state federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, a constitutional claim. Further, the federal courts may hear claims state statutes Core cites provide no brought under the United States causes of action, and Core’s factual Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. allegations are too vague to state any However, “the Due Process Clause claim. The Court should therefore protects individuals only from dismiss this case. governmental and not from private action.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., A. Core Has Not Sufficiently 457 U.S. 922, 930 (1982); accord.

Alleged Diversity Jurisdiction.

Seals v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., Federal courts have diversity LLC, 475 F. Supp. 3d 517, 521 (N.D.W. jurisdiction over civil claims that are Va. 2020). Similarly, “Section 1983 (1) for more than $75,000, and (2) does not regulate private conduct.” between citizens of different states. 28 Caudill v. N. Carolina Symphony U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). For a suit to Soc’y, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 3d 531, 559 satisfy the second element, “no (E.D.N.C. 2024) (collecting cases). plaintiff may share a citizenship with Here, Core’s sole federal claim is a due any defendant.” Navy Fed. Credit process violation. See Docket Entry 2 at 3; Docket Entry 5 at 2. But Core has alleged nothing more. He provides no named only private actors as details on what personal information defendants. See Docket Entry 2 at 2— the defendants mishandled, what 3; Docket Entry 5 at 2. Core has contract the defendants forced him to therefore failed to state a due process sign or how they did so, why the claim against any of the defendants. contract was fraudulent, or how any of And because Core’s due process claim this is connected to his car insurance is the only one over which this Court payments. Core has therefore failed to has original jurisdiction, dismissal of state a plausible claim under any law, Core’s state law claims is also not just those he cited. appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. 8 1367(c)(3). II. CONCLUSION C. The State Statutes Core Cites It is ORDERED that Core's Provide No Causes of Action. application to proceed in fe orma pauperis, Docket Entry 1, □ is Core cites the following state statutes GRANTED for the limited purpose in his complaints: 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § of allowing the Court to consider a 5525, 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2725, and recommendation of dismissal. It is N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52. RECOMMENDED that this case be actions that a plaintiff must bring claim within four years. 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2725 is the statute of limitations for certain breach of contract actions. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 lists causes of ALLL action that a plaintiff must bring o/ nna Gibs q McFadden within three years. nited States Magistrate Judge None of these statutes provide a cause of action; Core has therefore failed to March 19, 2026 state a plausible claim under any of Durham, North Carolina them.

D. Core’s Vague Factual Allegations Prevent Him from Stating Any Claim.

Core alleges that the defendants mishandled his personal information and forced him to sign a fraudulent contract, and that these acts were connected to him having to pay more for car insurance. See Docket Entry 2 at 4; Docket Entry 5 at 2. But Core has