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.

Rose v. Husenaj

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

February 26, 2017

JIMI ROSE
v.
BASHKIM BOBBY HUSENAJ, et al.

          MEMORANDUM

          GARDNER, J.

         This case is one of many that plaintiff Jimi Rose has filed against his tenant, Bashkim "Bobby" Husenaj. Plaintiff brings claims against Husenaj and others stemming from the allegedly improper disposition of his personal and business property. For the following reasons, the Court will grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint.

         I. FACTS[1]

         Plaintiff filed this civil action against Husenaj, Scoobies LLC, "Independent Contractors for Scoobies, " "Owners of Scoobies, " an "unknown locksmith from the State of New Jersey, " First Financial Insurance Company, ISG Companies, and Sheryl C. Patterson. Plaintiff owns property in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on which he used to operate a "Gentleman's club." On July 16, 2012, plaintiff leased his property to Husenaj, but apparently left certain of his personal and business property on the premises. The gist of plaintiff s claims is that Husenaj and his agents are responsible for the loss, theft, or destruction of his property in the months following the lease and in the wake of a fire on the premises.

         Plaintiff alleges that Husenaj led him to believe that his property "would be safe, undisturbed and not damaged" during the course of the lease. (Compl. ¶ 37.) However, certain individuals who Husenaj hired to repair and clean the property allegedly disposed of plaintiff s belongings without his consent. Plaintiff also alleges that Husenaj hired a locksmith from New Jersey to open his safe without permission.

         Husenaj ran a business called Scoobies Gentleman's Club on the property. In May of 2013, there was a fire on the premises. Plaintiff alleges that "[d]uring the course of that fire the contents in the Plaintiffs operation were destroyed, as a result of the negligence of Bobby Husenaj." (Compl. ¶ 36.) After learning that Husenaj was personally insured through First Financial Insurance Company, plaintiff contacted Sheryl Patterson, Husenaj's insurance agent, to submit a claim. It appears that he has not yet received any insurance proceeds from First Financial.[2]

         In this lawsuit, plaintiff seeks "to be reimbursed for the contents that were damaged by the fire and for his Property that was stolen prior to the fire." (Compl, ¶ 54.) He contends that, due to Husenaj's negligence, he suffered damages in excess of $1 million. The complaint is best construed as raising claims under state tort law, as it asserts the following four counts-(1) negligence; (2) conversion; (3) trespass to chattels; and (4) "unlawful destruction of the plaintiffs content." However, plaintiff may also be raising claims under state contract law. It is clear that he seeks to invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.[3]

         Notably, this is the second lawsuit-and the fourth complaint-that plaintiff has filed based on the events described above. On February 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a civil action against Husenaj, his "lackies, servants, slaves, coworkers, independent contractors, managers, bouncers and DJs, " "his Brother Ben, " "His Cousin Noz, " the owners of Scoobies and unknown owners of Scoobies, an "Unknown Locksmith from the State of New Jersey, " First Financial Insurance Company, ISG Companies, and Ms. Patterson. See Rose v. Husenaj, E.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 14-4288. The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction, but permitted plaintiff to file an amended complaint in the event he could establish jurisdiction by providing more information about the citizenship of each defendant.

         Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw his original complaint so he could replace it with an amended complaint. "Though [the amended complaint] provid[ed] more details [than the initial complaint] about the residences and places of employment of some of the defendants, [it]... fail[ed] to clearly state the citizenship of the parties." See Rose v. Husenaj, E.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 14-4288 (Apr. 30, 2015 Order at 2 n.l, ECF No. 8). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed two motions for reconsideration, which the Court denied because the motions did not cure the jurisdictional defect. Id. (Nov. 16, 2015 Order, ECF No. 11.)

         Plaintiff returned with an unauthorized second amended complaint, which the Court dismissed with prejudice in a January 20, 2016 order. The Court explained that, even if plaintiff had been given leave to file the second amended complaint, he still failed to sufficiently allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not appeal the Court's order. Instead, he initiated this civil action approximately eleven months later.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is unable to pay the costs of filing suit. As plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) apply, which require the Court to dismiss the complaint if it is malicious or fails to state a claim. "[A] district court may dismiss a complaint as malicious if it is plainly abusive of the judicial process or merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims." Brodzki v. CBS Sports, Civ. A. No. 11-841, 2012 WL 125281, at *1 (D. Del. Jan, 13, 2012).

         To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). As plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011). Furthermore, "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

         III. ...


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.