Hunter v. Holsinger
| Decision Date | 19 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-00043 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | CHASE CARMEN HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. LESLEY J. HOLSINGER, et al., Defendants. |
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Chase Carmen Hunter filed this action pro se against Lesley J. Holsinger and Carrie Ann Robertson ("Defendants"). Pending before the Court are Holsinger's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 24, Robertson's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 16, and Hunter's motions to amend the complaint, ECF Nos. 38-41. These motions are before me by referral under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The parties have briefed and argued the issue, and the matter is ripe for decision. After considering the pleadings, the parties' briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, I find that Hunter has failed to state a claim that entitles her to relief and that the proposed amendment of her Complaint would be futile. I therefore recommend that the presiding district judge grant Holsinger and Robertson's motions to dismiss and deny Hunter's motions to amend her complaint.
On June 4, 2015, Hunter filed a Complaint alleging ten counts against Holsinger alone and another four counts against both Defendants. ECF No. 2. Robertson and Holsinger filed separate motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 16, 24, and Hunter responded with briefs in opposition that also contained many facts not within the Complaint, ECF Nos. 38, 39, 41. At oral argument and by Order on November 25, 2015, ECF No. 55, the Court interpreted Hunter's responsive briefs as a motion to amend her complaint and granted further briefing on the issue. Hunter filed a brief in support of her motion, ECF No. 44, Robinson and Holsinger filed briefs in opposition, ECF Nos. 58, 59, and Hunter filed reply briefs in support, ECF Nos. 60, 63.
For the purposes of the motions to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all of Hunter's well-pled facts and construes them in the light most favorable to her. Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). Holsinger is an animal control officer for the City of Staunton, Virginia, and Robertson is a dog owner within Holsinger's jurisdiction. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 22-23. On March 26, 2015, Holsinger entered into the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services online database that Robertson's dog had bitten someone. Id. ¶ 4. Roughly the same time, she informed Robertson of Virginia Code § 3.2-6540(F), which requires owners of dogs that have been found dangerous to have liability insurance covering animal bites up to at least $100,000, or a surety bond of at least $100,000. Id. ¶ 1; see Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540(F). She told Robertson that she "must purchase 'a separate policy with only the dog on it' and that Robertson must buy this policy from 'Lester Kalmanson Agency or xinsurance' because these are the only two providers [of policies with] 'only the dog' on them." Compl. ¶ 2. Hunter states that Holsinger pressured Robertson to comply over the next two months, including calling her repeatedly, saying she would euthanize her dog, and threatening to report Robertson—who was on supervised release—to her probation officer. Id. ¶ 1.
In early May 2015, Hunter assisted Robertson in procuring an insurance policy to satisfy Virginia Code § 3.2-6540.1 Id. ¶ 2. When Robertson presented this policy to Holsinger on May 15, Holsinger informed her that Hunter was not licensed in Virginia and was under investigation.Id. ¶¶ 2, 25. She said Robertson's policy was fake, not legal, and failed to satisfy the statute. Id. Hunter alleges that Holsinger's statements about her were false, Holsinger knew they were false, and Robertson should have known they were false. Id. ¶¶ 2, 25. Holsinger referred Robertson to a renter's insurance policy from Farmer's Insurance Company that she said complied with Virginia Code § 3.2-6540. Id. ¶ 3. Hunter alleges that Holsinger coached Robertson to lie on her application to Farmer's by denying that her dog had bitten someone. Id. ¶ 4.
Despite Hunter's assurance that Holsinger's statements were false, Robertson demanded a refund, ordered Hunter to charge no future installment payments, and canceled the credit card associated with her policy. Id. She insulted Hunter, calling her pathetic, among other things. Id. ¶ 25. She further "filed complaints against Hunter with Holsinger, her credit card issuer, and the Bureau of Insurance, and posted comments about Hunter on the internet." Id. Hunter alleges that Holsinger told Robertson how to file the complaint with the Bureau of Insurance. Id. ¶ 26.
Hunter derives fourteen causes of action from these events. Against Holsinger alone, she alleges: conspiracy in restraint of trade and to create a monopoly in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (Counts I and II), blackmail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 873 (Count IV), deprivation of constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count V), conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Count VI), failure to prevent a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (Count VII), accessory after the fact in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 (Count VIII), misprision in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Count IX), conspiracy against constitutional rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Count X), and deprivation of rights under the color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Count XI). Against both Defendants, she alleges: a crime affecting insurance in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1033 (Count III), common law fraud (Count XII), tortious interference with a businessexpectancy (Count XIII), and conspiracy (Count XIV). She requests monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.
Hunter premises recovery for four of her counts—Counts III, IV, X, and XI—on 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), part of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Acts ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. In her motion to dismiss, Holsinger challenged the relevance of this statute under the facts of the Complaint. ECF No. 25, at 29-30. Hunter's responsive briefs contained a rebuttal to Holsinger's arguments and a significant amount of new facts detailing her RICO allegations. See ECF No. 38, at 4-32; ECF No. 39, at 5-35.2 Both briefs end by requesting the Court "to allow Hunter to amend her complaint to include the details shown above," ECF No. 38, at 34; ECF No. 39, at 36, leading the Court to interpret these briefs as motions for leave to file an amended complaint.
In her proposed amended facts, Hunter states that she is one of only a few insurance agents who sell policies covering dangerous dogs. ECF No. 39, at 5-6. In 2009, one of her competitors in this market, Mitchel Kalmanson, sued her and others in Florida state court.3 Id. at 6. Though the contours of this dispute are not clear, it eventually resulted in an April 2011 judgment against the defendants for ten million dollars. Id. Hunter alleges many defects with the case and judgment, including failure to effect service, forged records of hearings that never occurred, and court orders (including the final judgment) being entered by her opponents rather than a judge. Id. at 6-9. Hunter concludes that all court orders from this case and the judgmentagainst her are "fraudulent" and not legally binding.4 Id. at 6, 11. Hunter's attempts to challenge the judgment on direct appeal and with additional suits in Florida have been unsuccessful. Id.
In 2012, Kalmanson began attempting to collect on his judgment in multiple states, including Virginia.5 Id. at 11-17, 22-23. Hunter challenged the judgment and Virginia collection efforts in Virginia state court and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but was not successful. Id. at 11-14. In January 2015, a Virginia judge ordered Hunter's property in Chesterfield County sold to satisfy the Florida judgment. Id. at 15-16. The locks on her property were changed, and Hunter has lost the rental income from that property. Id. at 16. Collection efforts have also resulted in multiple orders for Hunter's arrest, id. at 12-14, 19, 22-23, and two periods of imprisonment in Virginia for eight days each in 2012, id. at 12, 22-23. Hunter calls these arrests "kidnapping" performed "in cooperation with the criminal conspiracy arising from Florida." Id. at 14.
In October 2014, the Virginia Bureau of Insurance ("VBI") initiated an investigation into Hunter's business.6 Id. at 14. The pleadings do not provide much detail on the proceedings, but it appears that the VBI took issue with Hunter's website, id. at 19, and that they wrangled over production of documents, id. at 20. Concerning the documents, Hunter states both that the VBI"never alleged that Hunter had [or] was required to have" the requested documents and that she actually did respond to the request. Id. Nevertheless, the VBI threatened to fine her for failure to produce documents. Id. The proceeding ended with the VBI revoking Hunter's license, allegedly solely for Hunter's failure to produce the requested documents. Id. at 21. Hunter pleads multiple procedural defects with the VBI's process, especially the handling of her second administrative hearing, and consequently labels the order revoking her license "void." Id. at 21. Hunter reports that administrative action has also been taken against her by the Florida Department of Financial Services and the Texas Department of Insurance.7 Id. at 17-18.
Hunter responded to Kalmanson's collection efforts and the VBI's actions with numerous additional lawsuits. She filed a petition with the Virginia Supreme Court alleging that Virginia judges violated state law in their attempts to enforce the Florida judgment. Id. at 20. The Virginia Supreme Court denied her request for a fee waiver, and Hunter did not pursue the petition further. Id. at 19-20. Hunter filed a federal suit and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial