09-4229 Oladimeji A. Bamigbade v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 09-3868 & 09-4229
___________
OLADIMEJI A. BAMIGBADE,
Appellant
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY;
JOHN CODICHINI
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
D.C. Civ. No. 09-cv-00528
(Honorable Peter G. Sheridan)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 6, 2010
Before: SCIRICA, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: August 9, 2010)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
Oladimeji Bamigbade appeals pro se from the orders of the District Court
dismissing his claims against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and

-- 1 of 4 --

Only Defendants were present at the oral argument. On June 29, 2009, Bamigbade1
filed a letter to the District Court, stating that he waived his right to be present at the
argument.
2
John Codichini as time-barred by the statute of limitations and denying his motion for
reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm both orders.
I.
On April 3, 2005, a motor vehicle accident occurred in New Jersey between
Bamigbade and Defendant Codichini. Codichini is insured by Defendant State Farm
Mutual Insurance Company (“State Farm”). Codichini is a resident of Pennsylvania, and
Bamigbade has addresses in New York and New Jersey; State Farm does business in all
three states. On March 11, 2008, Bamigbade filed a complaint against Defendants in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint was
dismissed without prejudice based on improper venue.
On February 5, 2009, Bamigbade filed a complaint against Defendants in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. He brought claims against
Codichini for negligence and reckless endangerment “as a proximate result” of the April
2005 accident, and he sought compensatory damages against State Farm pursuant to an
“Insured Policy” that he claims entitled him to $500,000.00. The complaint also included
a demand for punitive damages. Bamigbade filed a motion for a default judgment, and
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for a more specific statement.
On August 12, 2009, the District Court heard oral argument. By order entered August1

-- 2 of 4 --

3
12, 2009, the District Court dismissed Bamigbade’s claims against Defendants as time
barred by the New Jersey statute of limitations, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2. The court
denied as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Bamigbade’s motion for default
judgment. Bamigbade moved for reconsideration, which the court denied. Bamigbade
now appeals from the District Court’s orders.
II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In
determining whether a district court properly dismissed a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), this Court must “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable
reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Phillips v. County of
Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009). The assumption of truth does not apply, however, to legal conclusions
couched as factual allegations or to “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id.
We agree with the District Court’s analysis regarding the timeliness of
Bamigbade’s claims. A complaint may properly be dismissed for failure to state a claim
on statute of limitations grounds if the untimeliness of the complaint is apparent on its

-- 3 of 4 --

4
face. See Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 n.1 (3d Cir.
1994). Because the accident occurred in New Jersey, the applicable statute of limitations
is that governing personal injury claims in New Jersey. Fu v. Fu, 733 A.2d 1133, 1152
(N.J. 1999). Therefore, Bamigbade had two years from the time his cause of action
accrued to file his complaint. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2. Bamigbade’s complaint
alleges that his claims against the Defendants arose out of an accident that occurred on
April 3, 2005. However, he did not file a complaint until March 11, 2008, at the earliest.
Bamigbade’s reliance on a contract claim against State Farm (subject to a six-year statute
of limitations period, see N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-1) is misplaced, as he never entered into
any insurance policy or contract with State Farm. Accordingly, Bamigbade’s claims are
untimely, and the District Court properly dismissed his amended complaint on that basis.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the orders of the District Court
dismissing Bamigbade’s complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration.
Bamigbade’s motion to overturn or reverse the District Court order is denied.
Bamigbade’s motion to expedite the appeal is denied as moot.

-- 4 of 4 --