The opinion of the court was delivered by: O'neill, J.
Plaintiffs Allen Feingold and Phillip Goddard have sued defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company over State Farm's handling of Goddard's claim for benefits. I now have before me State Farm's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. For the reasons that follow, I will grant in part and deny in part defendant's motion.
Plaintiffs allege the following facts in their Amended Complaint. On August 6, 1998, Goddard was involved in a motor vehicle accident that occurred due to the negligence of an uninsured or underinsured driver. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 7-8. Goddard suffered injuries as a result of the accident and made a claim under the uninsured motor vehicle provision of his State Farm policy. Id. at ¶¶ 7-10. He retained Feingold, who was then an attorney, to represent him in his claim. Id. at ¶ 10. State Farm refused to pay benefits or appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate Goddard's claim. Id. at ¶ 11. Feingold then filed a motion to compel arbitration in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Id. at ¶ 12. Eventually, a neutral arbitrator from Delaware was selected. Id. at ¶ 16. State Farm then demanded that Goddard undergo a physical examination, but State Farm "never followed through" on arrangements for the exam. Id. at ¶ 17.
The Amended Complaint does not specify when the medical exam fell through. In December, 2010, however, Goddard was represented by new counsel and attempted to schedule an arbitration hearing. Id. at ¶ 18. State Farm refused to proceed with arbitration, maintaining that the statute of limitations period on Goddard's claim had expired. Id. at ¶ 19.
Feingold and Goddard assert claims for breach of contract and bad faith in violation of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8371. Nowhere does the Amended Complaint allege that Feingold had a contractual relationship with State Farm.
State Farm presently moves to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). State Farm's motion also notes that Feingold has been disbarred. The case law shows that Feingold was in fact disbarred in 2008. See Feingold v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 415 Fed. App'x 429, 430 (3d Cir. 2011).*fn1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss all or part of an action for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Typically, "a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations," though plaintiff's obligation to state the grounds of entitlement to relief "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. (citations omitted). The complaint must state "'enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of' the necessary element." Wilkerson v. New Media Tech. Charter Sch. Inc., 522 F.3d 315, 321 (3d Cir. 2008), quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. The Court of Appeals has made clear that after Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1955, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), "conclusory or 'bare-bones' allegations will no longer survive a motion to dismiss: 'threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.' To prevent dismissal, all civil complaints must now set out 'sufficient factual matter' to show that the claim is facially plausible." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009), quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. The Court also set forth a two part-analysis for reviewing motions to dismiss in light of Twombly and Iqbal: "First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a 'plausible claim for relief.'" Id. at 210-11, quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. The Court explained, "a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. A complaint has to 'show' such an entitlement with its facts." Id., citing Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234-35 (3d Cir. 2008). "Where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged--but it has not 'show[n]'--'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
Rule 12(b)(3) allows a party to dismiss an action for improper venue.
"All well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are generally taken as true unless contradicted by the defendant's affidavits, and the Court may examine facts outside the complaint to determine proper venue." Holiday v. Bally's Park Place, Inc., No. 06-4588, 2007 WL 2600877, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 10, 2007). The movant bears the burden of establishing improper venue. Myers v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716, 724 (3d Cir. 1982).
State Farm avers that Feingold lacks standing to pursue claims against it. "To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). The plaintiff's injury must be "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Amended Complaint alleges that "Feingold has been deprived of his counsel fees and costs" as a result of State Farm's bad faith. Am. Compl. at ¶ 28. Feingold's alleged deprivation of fees and costs is highly conjectural, as Goddard's uninsured motorist claim was never decided. Additionally, Pennsylvania's bad faith statue applies only where "the insurer has acted in bad faith toward the insured." Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8371 (emphasis added). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained that the statute "only permits a narrow class of plaintiffs to pursue the bad faith claim against a narrow class of ...