Sabri et al v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Mohammad O. Sabri and Mona Sabri,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co.,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-1689 (PJS/SGE)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Equitable Tolling and
Leave to Supplement Damages. (Dkt. 7.) Plaintiffs have filed a complaint against
Defendant Chubb Indemnity Insurance Co. (“Chubb”) for damages due under an insurance
contract following a house fire. (See Dkt. 1.) Plaintiffs’ motion asks for the court to (1)
grant it leave “to supplement their damages to include losses discovered after the initial
claim submission” and (2) “equitably toll[] any contractual or policy limitations periods
relating to these supplemental damages[.]” (Dkt. 7 at 1.)
At this time, nothing prevents Plaintiffs from amending their Complaint. Plaintiffs
filed the Complaint in this matter on March 2, 2026. (Dkt. 1.) The Federal Rules allow
parties to amend a pleading once as a matter of course no later than 21 days after serving
it or within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading, whichever is earlier. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). To date, no proof of service or answer to the Complaint has been filed,
and so the 21-day period set out in Rule 15(a) has not even begun to run. Plaintiffs are
CASE 0:26-cv-01689-PJS-SGE Doc. 14 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
therefore able to amend their Complaint as a matter of course without the court’s advance
permission.
Plaintiffs also ask for an order equitably tolling any contractual or policy limitations
period relating to the supplemental damages they seek to add to their Complaint. “Equitable
tolling is premised on the excusable neglect of the filing party, and [it] preserves a claim
after the filing period has expired.” Shempert v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 151 F.3d 793, 797
(8th Cir. 1998) (cleaned up); Medeiros v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., 809 F. Supp. 3d 884, 890
(D. Minn. 2025).
Equitable tolling “may be appropriate when a claimant has received
inadequate notice, when a motion for appointment for counsel was
pending, when the court has led the plaintiff to believe that he had
done everything required of him, or when affirmative misconduct on
the part of the defendant has lulled the plaintiff into inaction.”
Jackson v. Hennepin Healthcare Sys., Inc., 134 F.4th 1262, 1264 (8th Cir. 2025) (quoting
Hallgren v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 331 F.3d 588, 590 (8th Cir. 2003)). At this point in the
litigation—before a defendant has responded to the Complaint—it would be inappropriate
to address an unopposed request to equitably toll any limitations periods. These issues are
best reserved until all parties have appeared and weighed in on the issues. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ request to toll any applicable limitations periods will be denied.
Finally, the Court notes that there does not appear to be any certificate of service or
other indication that Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company has received notice of this
action. The Federal Rules require a complaint to be served upon a defendant within 90 days
after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Even though Plaintiffs are proceeding pro
se, they must still comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. E.g., Ackra Direct
CASE 0:26-cv-01689-PJS-SGE Doc. 14 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 89 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996) (“In general, pro se
representation does not excuse a party from complying with a court’s orders and with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); Bennett v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d 805,
808 (8th Cir. 2002) (a plaintiff’s “pro se status did not entitle him to disregard the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, even without affirmative notice of the application of the rules to
his case”). The court encourages Plaintiffs to effect service on the defendant so that this
matter can proceed. Failure to do so could result in this matter being dismissed for failure
to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), 41(b).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Equitable
Tolling and Leave to Supplement Damages (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED-IN-PART and
DENIED-IN-PART as set forth above. Plaintiffs may file an Amended Complaint
pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(A).
Date: March 23, 2026 	s/Shannon G. Elkins
SHANNON G. ELKINS
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01689-PJS-SGE Doc. 14 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 3