United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
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.
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.
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
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.
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. §
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.
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.)
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
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
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).