GREGORY M. SLEET, District Judge.
The plaintiff, Jerry A. Hurst ("Hurst"), who proceeds pro se, filed this lawsuit on May 5, 2015, alleging violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 272] through 2725 and constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Before the court are motions to dismiss filed by the defendants Nicholas Skiles ("Skiles") (D.I. 17), Colin Shalk ("Shalk") (D.I. 29), Maxwell Wiegard ("Wiegard") and Guy Harbert ("Harbert") (D.I. 37), and Marty Harbin ("Harbin") and State Farm (D.I. 40). Also before the court are Hurst's request for entry of default and motion to strike (D.I. 32, 48). For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the defendants' motions to dismiss, will deny Hurst's motions, and will order Hurst to show cause why he should not be enjoined from filing future similar cases.
Hurst and his litigation have come full circle. As set forth in this court's February 9, 2012 memorandum and order in Hurst v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 10-1001-GMS, 2012 WL426018, at *1 (D. Del. Feb. 9,2012), aff'd, No. 12-1654 (3d Cir. Oct. 24, 2012) ("Hurst I"), this action stems from State Farm's denial of an insurance claim made by Hurst for the April 3, 2001 theft of his customized van and allegations that Hurst received a November 24, 2008 letter from State Farm, "confessing" that State Farm, through its outside agents and legal counsel, disclosed Hurst's "personal information," including Hurst's social security number, driver identification number, address, and other information that identifies an individual, all in violation of the DPPA. Hurst 1,2012 WL 426018, at *2. The court's February 9, 2012 memorandum sets forth the background of Hurst's claim, and it is incorporated herein. See Hurst I, 2012 WL 426018, at *2-3.
Hurst I alleged: (1) violations of the DPPA; (2) violations of42 U.S.C. § 1983 by reason of DPP A violations; (3) violations of privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution by reason of DPP A violations; (4) constitutional violations of the right to privacy by publicizing private facts and by false light; (5) conspiracy; (6) retaliation; (7) fraud, fraudulent concealment, and fraud on the court; (8) abuse of process; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) tortious interference with contractual relations; (11) tortious interference with business relations; (12) inadequate hiring, training, supervision, and discipline; (13) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and privacy policy; (14) constitutional claims; and (15) State law claims. Hurst I was filed against State Farm, Harbin, Wiegard, Harbert, and Shalk, all of whom are named defendants in this action. Other named defendants were City of Rehoboth Beach ("Rehoboth Beach"), Walter Speakman ("Speakman"), Keith Banks ("Banks"), Kevin Connors ("Connors"), United National Insurance Company ("United National Insurance"), and Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company ("Harleysville Mutual Insurance"). Skiles, a defendant in the instant action, is an attorney who represented Rehoboth Beach, Speakman, and Harleysville Mutual Insurance in Hurst I.
In Hurst I, this court took judicial notice that Hurst had filed four prior lawsuits regarding the theft of the van, including: (1) Hurst v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 04-1350-TSE-BRP (E.D. Va.), a RICO action against State Farm, Harbin, David L. Jones ("Jones"), Marshall Major ("Major"), and John D. McGavin ("McGavin"), dismissed on November 15, 2004; (2) Hurst v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 05-1279-GBL-TRJ (E.D. Va.), filed November 7, 2005, alleging that State Farm breached the terms of an automobile insurance policy when it denied Hurst's claim for the 2001 theft of his van. Hurst attached as an exhibit to the complaint a non-redacted affidavit of vehicle theft. The complaint also alleged fraud, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The matter was transferred from the Eastern District of Virginia to the Western District of Virginia on December 21, 2005, Hurst v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., Civ. No. 05-776-GEC (W.D. Va.), and summary judgment was granted in favor of State Farm, affirmed on appeal, on April 29, 2009; (3) Hurst v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 08-2907-WMN (D. Md.), a RICO action against State Farm, Harbin, Jones, Major, and McGavin, dismissed on November 19, 2008, as barred by res judicata, affirmed on appeal on April 29, 2009; and (4) Hurst v. City of Salisbury, Civ. No. 10-2516-WDG (D. Md.), alleging violations under the federal criminal code, as well as breach of contract, tortious breach of contract, bad faith, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, against the City of Salisbury ("Salisbury"), Chief Webster ("Webster"), Captain Wiley ("Wiley"), Officer Smullen ("Smullen"), State Farm, Major, Harbin, McGavin, Wiegard, and Harbert, dismissed as barred by res judicata and, in the alternative, as time-barred, affirmed on appeal, on May 31, 2011.
After considering motions to dismiss filed in Hurst 1, this court found that: (1)(a) Hurst was barred under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion to relitigate claims relating to the actions of State Farm, Harbin, and Wiegard, and Harbert, individuals who were defendants in prior federal litigation Hurst filed against them, and (b) to the extent that Hurst sought to raise additional claims that could have been raised in his prior actions, the claims were also barred; (2) the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and Delaware conspiracy and fraud claims were time-barred; (3) the defendants were protected under the absolute litigation privilege; (4) a malicious defense claim is not cognizable under Delaware law; (5) the allegations failed to state claims upon which relief may be granted under the DPPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the State claims of false light invasion of privacy, conspiracy, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and fraud on the court, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with business relations, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the remaining "catch-all claims." See Hurst I, 2012 WL 426018, at *7-18. The court dismissed the complaint and found futility in amendment. Id. at *18.
Undeterred by the ruling in Hurst I (affirmed on appeal), Hurst commenced two more actions raising the same or similar claims against the same defendants, including: (1) Hurst v. Harbert, Civ. No. 13-558-GBL-JFA (E.D. Va.) filed May 3, 2013, raising DPPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, and supplemental state claims including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misappropriation of Hurst's name, violation of VPIPA, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with contractual relations against Harbert, Wiegard, Harbin, Shalk, Skiles, State Farm, and Doe defendants.
As discussed, the instant complaint contains virtually identical claims as those raised in Hurst I, Hurst II, and Hurst III. As in Hurst II and Hurst III, Hurst now alleges that, on May 6, 2011, during the course of the Hurst I litigation, the defendants filed unredacted copies of the same personal information previously disclosed by the defendants and that there were numerous out-of-court disclosures of his personal information (none of which are identified). (D.I. 2 at ¶¶ 4, 11.) Skiles moves for dismissal on the grounds of res judicata and for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (D.I. 17, 18.) Shall joins Skiles' motion to dismiss and seeks dismissal on the basis of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (D.I. 29, 30.) Wiegard and Harbert joint Skiles' and Shalk's motions to dismiss and move for dismissal on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and as time-barred. (D.I. 37, 38.) State Farm and Harbin move for dismissal on the grounds of res judicata, as time-barred, and for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (D.I. 40, 41.) All the defendants ask the court to enjoin Hurst from filing serial lawsuits. Hurst opposes the motions. He requests entry of default as to Harbert, Shalk, and Wiegard, and moves to strike Skiles' sur-reply brief.
Because Hurst proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the court to accept as true all material allegations of the complaint. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 223 (3d Cir. 2004). "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the court may grant such a motion to dismiss only if, after "accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Maio v. Aetna, Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 481-82 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby, ___ U.S. ____, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 346.
Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. See Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 and Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. At bottom, "[t]he complaint must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [each] necessary element" of a plaintiff's claim. Wilkerson v. New Media Tech. Charter Sch. Inc., 522 F.3d 315, 321 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The court turns to the case dispositive issues of claim and issue preclusion. The defendants contend that the instant complaint represents yet another action raising previously adjudicated claims arising from State Farm's denial of Hurst's 2001 claim for the theft of his van. They argue that Hurst presents the same allegations as those raised before this court in Hurst I and urge this court to dismiss the complaint for the same reasons as set forth in the court's February 9, 2012 opinion. Tn Hurst I, this court stated,
Hurst I, 2012 WL 426018, at *7.
The instant complaint raises claims alleging violations of the DPPA (Counts I and II) and violations of 42 U.S.c. § 1983 (Count III). With the exception of Skiles, who was not a defendant in Hurst I, Hurst raises the same DPPA and § 1983 claims against the same defendants (i.e., Wiegard, Harbin, Harbert, State Farm, and Shalk) in this case as in Hurst I. This court dismissed these claims in Hurst I. In addition, these claims raised against Skiles, as well as the other named defendants in this action, in Hurst II and Hurst III, were dismissed without prejudice.
Count I of the instant complaint also alleges breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and of the written privacy policy of State Farm, Count VI alleges civil conspiracy, and Count VII alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress, although none of the counts indicate the state law under which it is raised. In Hurst I, the court dismissed these claims, as raised under Delaware law, for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted.
"Under the doctrine of res judicata (referred to now as claim preclusion), a judgment in a prior suit involving the same parties, or parties in privity with them, bars a subsequent suit on the same cause of action." See Fairbank's Capital Corp. v. Milligan, 234 App'x 21, 23 (3d Cir. 2007) (unpublished); Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Aviation Office of Am., Inc., 292 F.3d 384, 392 (3d Cir. 2002). "The rationale is that if the adjudication of an action is binding on parties in privity with the parties fonnally named in the litigation, then any claims against parties in privity should be brought in the same action lest the door be kept open for subsequent relitigation of the same claims." Transamerica Occidental, 292 F.3d at 392.
Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, "refers to the preclusive effect of a judgment on the merits of an issue that was previously litigated or that could have been litigated." See Fairbank's Capital Corp., 234 F. App'x at 23. Issue preclusion occurs "[w]hen an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.'" Jean Alexander Cosmetics, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 458 F.3d 244, 249 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982)). There are four requirements for the application of collateral estoppel: (1) the identical issue was previously adjudicated; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the previous determination was necessary to the decision; and (4) the party being precluded from relitigating the issue was fully represented in the prior action." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In Hurst I, this court agreed with federal courts in Maryland and Virginia that Hurst is barred under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion to relitigate his claims relating to the actions of State Farm, Harbin, and Wiegard, and Harbert; individuals who were defendants in prior federal litigation Hurst filed with regard to claims arising from State Farm's denial of Hurst's 2001 claim for the theft of his van. Hurst I, 2012 WL 426018, at *7. In addition, in Hurst I, this court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and found amendment futile. See id. at *18. As discussed, the allegations in Hurst I raised against Wiegard, Harbin, Harbert, State Farm, and Shalk (all of which related to the 2001 insurance claim) included the following dismissed claims: DPPA,
Skiles was not a named defendant in Hurst I.
Hurst's time to raise the claims in this action occurred when he unsuccessfully sought recovery in this court and district courts in Virginia and Maryland. Hurst may not relitigate the claims he currently raises against the defendants as they are barred under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. To the extent Hurst seeks to raise additional claims, such as the claims raised under Virginia law, said claims could have been raised in Hurst's prior actions, and they are also barred.
On February 8, 2017, Hurst filed a request for entry of default on the grounds that Shalk, Wiegard, and Harbert failed to plead or otherwise defend. (D.I. 32.) The defendants respond that they were not required to answer or otherwise respond until on or before February 21,2017, and that they timely tiled motions to dismiss.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Timely serving and filing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), precludes entry of default. See Francis v. Joint Force Headquarters Nat'l Guard, 2006 WL 2711459, (D.N.J. Sept. 19, 2006), aff'd in part, 247 F. App'x 387 (3d Cir. 2007) (unpublished).
According to the court docket, Shalk, Wiegard, and Harbert were to file an answer or otherwise plead on or before February 21, 2017, and they did so. (See D.I. 19, 20, 21.) Shalk filed his motion to dismiss on January 27, 2017 (D.I. 29), and Wiegard and Harbert filed their motion to dismiss on February 21, 2017 (D.I. 37). Hurst prematurely requests entry of default. Therefore, the court will deny the motion. (D.I. 32.)
Hurst has engaged in filing numerous lawsuits that contain frivolous and repetitive legal arguments and claims that are vexatious and abusive of the judicial process. These lawsuits all raise issues relating to matters that stem from State Farm's denial of an insurance claim made by Hurst for the April 3, 2001 theft of his customized van, including but not limited to claims of: (1) violations of the DPPA; (2) violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) violations of privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (4) constitutional violations of the right to privacy by publicizing private facts and by false light; (5) conspiracy; (6) retaliation; (7) fraud, fraudulent concealment, and fraud on the court; (8) abuse of process; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (I 0) tortious interference with contractual relations; (11) tortious interference with business relations; (12) inadequate hiring, training, supervision, and discipline; (13) breach ofthe covenant of good faith and fair dealing and privacy policy; (14) violations of VCP A and VPIP A; and (15) misappropriation of name. The lawsuits were filed against Skiles, Shalk, Wiegard, Harbert, Harbin, State Farm, Rehoboth Beach, Speakman, Banks, Connors, United National Insurance, Harleysville Mutual Insurance, Jones, Major, McGavin, Salisbury, Webster, Wiley, and Smullen.
In addition to the instant action, Hurst has filed the following lawsuits in this court and other federal courts all related to matters that stem from State Farm's denial of an insurance claim made by Hurst for the April 3, 2001 theft of his customized van, as follows: Hurst v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 04-1350-TSE-BRP (E.D. Va.) (dismissed Nov. 15, 2004); Hurst v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 05-776-GEC (W.D. Va.) (summary judgment granted in favor of defendants Sept. 26, 2008), aff'd as modified, No. 08-2223 (4
Because of Hurst's litigious activity, which the court tinds vexatious, the court has the power to enjoin him from filing meritless pleadings where the pleadings raise issues identical or similar to those that have already been adjudicated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651; See Matter of Packer Ave. Assoc., 884 F.2d 745, 747 (3d Cir. 1989); Yadav v. Surtees, 87 F. App'x 271 (3d Cir. 2004) (unpublished). The court has reviewed the complaints and opinions dismissing them, in each of the above-listed cases, and note that they are repetitive, frivolous and/or fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted. Indeed, with his repetitive filings, Hurst has abused the legal process.
Therefore, Hurst will be ordered to show cause, in writing, why he should not be enjoined from filing any complaint, lawsuit, or petition for writ of mandamus, relating to matters that stem from State Farm's denial of an insurance claim made by Hurst for the April 3, 2001 theft of his customized van, including, but not limited to actions against Skiles, Shalk, Wiegard, Harbert, Harbin, State Farm, Rehoboth Beach, Speakman, Banks, Connors, United National Insurance, Harleysville Mutual Insurance, Jones, Major, McGavin, Salisbury, Webster, Wiley, and Smullen. or their counsel who represents or represented them.
For the above reasons, the court will grant the defendants' motions to dismiss (D.I. 17, 29, 37, 40) and will deny the plaintiff's the request for entry of default (D.I. 32) and motion to strike (D.I. 48).
An appropriate order will be issued.
