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.

Sehat v. Progressive Universal Insurance Company of Illinois

United States District Court, D. Oregon

March 8, 2017

SUBRINA POUPAK SEHAT, Plaintiff,
v.
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          ANNA J. BROWN United States District Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on the Ninth Circuit's Referral Notice, Case No. 17-35168, referring Plaintiff's appeal to this Court for the sole purpose of determining whether Plaintiff s "in forma pauperis status should continue for [her] appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith."

         The Court concludes Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should not continue for appeal.

         BACKGROUND

         On September 4, 2014, Plaintiff Subrina Poupak Sehat filed a Complaint in this Court in which she alleged claims against Defendant Progressive Universal Insurance Company for intentional infliction of emotional distress; "intent & deprivation of liberty, pursuit of happiness"; obstruction of justice; "malicious intent to injure" conspiracy to interfere with civil rights; "neglect to prevent conspiracy"; failure to provide the standard of care; breach of contract; "mental suffering and emotional distress"; negligent infliction of emotional distress; breach of fiduciary duty; and "aggravation of previous injury" related to two automobile accidents Plaintiff was involved in and Plaintiff's alleged automobile-insurance coverage by Progressive Universal.

         On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 68-page First Amended Complaint against Defendants Progressive, Washington County Sheriff's Office (WCSO), and Corbridge & Kroll Law Firm. Plaintiff brought nine tort and contractual claims against Progressive arising out of an insurance-coverage dispute, eleven claims against Corbridge & Kroll comprising a "conspiracy to commit legal malpractice, " seventeen claims against WCSO for tort and civil-rights violations, and forty-four "additional claims" against Defendants.

         Progressive filed a Motion to Dismiss, WSCO filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Dismiss, Corbridge & Kroll filed a Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff filed numerous other motions.

         On February 26, 2015, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Amended Findings and Recommendations in which he recommended, among other things, that the Court (1) grant Progressive's Motion to Dismiss and dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's Claims 1-5 against Progressive; (2) grant WCSO's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims 1-4, 6-8, 9-12, and 14 and dismiss with prejudice those claims against WCSO; (3) deny with leave to refile WCSO's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claims 5, 13, and 15-17 against WCSO; (4) grant Corbridge & Kroll's Motion to Dismiss and dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Corbridge & Kroll; and (5) deny Plaintiff's various motions.

         On March 23, 2015, this Court issued an Order (#64) granting Plaintiff's Motions (#60, #63) for Extension of Time to respond to the Findings and Recommendation. The Court directed Plaintiff to file any Objection to the Findings and Recommendation no later than April 22, 2015.

         On April 28, 2015, this Court issued an Order (#85) granting Plaintiff's Motion (#80) for Extension of Time to File Objection to Findings and Recommendation. The Court directed Plaintiff to file any Objection to the Findings and Recommendation no later than May 8, 2015. The Court advised Plaintiff that it would not grant Plaintiff any further extension of time to file Objections.

         On May 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed Objections (#92, #93, #94) to the Findings and Recommendation.

         On May 27, 2015, the Court entered an Order in which it noted Plaintiff failed to file her Objections by May 8, 2015, as directed in the Court's April 28, 2015, Order. The Court, therefore, struck Plaintiff's Objections and gave Plaintiff leave to show cause why the Court should consider her Objections timely filed.

         On May 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Answer to Order for Explanation related to her untimely Objections.

         On June 1, 2015, the Court entered an Order in which it concluded Plaintiff had not sufficiently explained her late filing and, therefore, ordered Plaintiff's Objections to remain stricken.[1] The Court took the ...


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.