Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kiza v. Universal Insurance Co.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

September 9, 2019

BRIGETTE KIZA, NYIRANGORORE MUKASINI, SOLANGE MUKEMANA, MARIE MUKARURANGWA, and U.G., a minor, Plaintiffs,
v.
UNIVERSAL INSURANCE CO., ALL POINTE INSURANCE AGENCY, PAUL ROBERT HOPKINS, I-XX DOES, and AUTO CLUB COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

          DAVID S. CAYER United States Magistrate Judge

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Universal Insurance Company's “Motion to Dismiss” (document #14), “Defendant Paul Robert Hopkins' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction …” (document #16), “Defendant Auto Club Insurance Company of Florida's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction …” (document #18), and pro se Plaintiffs' “Motion[s] for Leave to File Surrepl[ies]” (documents ##27 and 31), as well as the parties' briefs and exhibits.

         These Motions have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court has considered all of the parties' submissions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' “Motion[s] for Leave to File Surrepl[ies]” (documents ##27 and 31) are granted.

         Having fully considered the arguments, the record, and the applicable authority, the Court respectfully recommends that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss be granted as discussed below.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Accepting the factual allegations of the Complaint as true, this action stems from an automobile collision that occurred on Interstate 95 in Florida. A vehicle driven by Defendant Hopkins struck the vehicle occupied by Plaintiffs. Complaint ¶ 13. The collision was “clearly caused by the recklessness, carelessness and negligence of the defendant Paul Hopkins.” (Complaint ¶ 14). “[A]ll of the plaintiffs' losses are and will be due solely to and by reason of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant, Paul Robert Hopkins.” (Complaint ¶ 21).

         At the time of the collision, Plaintiffs' vehicle was covered under an insurance policy issued by Defendant Universal Insurance Company. The policy provided liability coverage only with minimum limits of $30, 000/$60, 000 and no physical damage coverage.

         Defendant Auto Club Company of Florida is the insurer of Defendant Hopkins' vehicle. Plaintiffs' claims against both insurance policies were denied.

         On March 20, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their pro se Complaint, alleging claims for breach of insurance contract, violation of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, racial and national origin discrimination in violation of 28 U.S.C. §1981, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 (“FDCPA”), the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (“FCRA”), and punitive damages.

         Defendant Universal has moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants Hopkins and Auto Club Insurance Company of Florida have moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff has offered no evidence concerning those Defendants' citizenship or activities conducted in or directed at North Carolina.

         The parties' Motions are ripe for disposition.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

         In evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, all factual disputes must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. The non-moving party must make a prima facie showing that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is proper. See Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir. 1989); Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. v. Delta International Corp., 696 F.2d 1062, 1064 (4th Cir. 1982); General Latex and Chemical Corp. v. Phoenix Medical Technology, Inc., 765 F.Supp. 1246, 1248 (W.D. N.C. 1991). A plaintiff must prove facts sufficient ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.