Flores v. Liberty Mutual Insurance et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VALERIE FLORES,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE and
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR a/k/a
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS,
Defendants.
1:25-cv-01730 (AMN/PJE)
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
VALERIE FLORES
P.O. Box 1110 ACP 5749
Albany, New York 12201
Plaintiff pro se
JAFFE & ASHER LLP 	MARSHALL T. POTASHNER, ESQ.
445 Hamilton Avenue – Suite 405
White Plains, New York 10601
Attorneys for Defendant
Liberty Mutual Insurance
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff pro se Valerie Flores commenced this action against
Liberty Mutual Insurance (“Liberty Mutual”) and Enterprise Rent-A-Car (“Enterprise”) (together,
“Defendants”) alleging that Enterprise stole her personal belongings out of a rental car and charged
her for the rental of the vehicle, and claiming that Liberty Mutual, her automobile insurance
company, was required to pay for the rental. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff did not pay
the filing fee and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkt. No. 2.
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 16 Filed 05/22/26 Page 1 of 6

2
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista, who
reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and on April 30, 2026, granted Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to proceed IFP and recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice and without leave to amend. 	See Dkt. No. 14 at 7 (“Report-Recommendation”). 1
Magistrate Judge Evangelista advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Parties had
fourteen days within which to file written objections and that failure to object to the Report-
Recommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. 	Id. 	Plaintiff filed
objections on May 18, 2026. Dkt. No. 15.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its
entirety.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation
that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223,
228 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	If no specific objections have been filed, this
Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. 	See Petersen, 2 F.
Supp. 3d at 229 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition).
Similarly, if an objection simply rehashes arguments originally presented to the magistrate judge,
this Court reviews the relevant portions of the report-recommendation for clear error. 	See id. at
228-29 & n.6 (collecting cases). Similarly, when a party files “[g]eneral or conclusory objections,
or objections which merely recite the same arguments [previously] presented to the magistrate
judge,” the district court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendations for clear error.
1 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 16 Filed 05/22/26 Page 2 of 6

3
O’Diah v. Mawhir, No. 08-cv-322, 2011 WL 933846, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations
omitted); accord Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (a “statement,
devoid of any reference to specific findings or recommendations to which [the plaintiff] objected
and why, and unsupported by legal authority, was not sufficient to preserve” a claim); Petersen, 2
F. Supp. 3d at 228-29 & n.6 (collecting cases). “When performing such a ‘clear error’ review, ‘the
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.’” Dezarea W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-cv-1138, 2023 WL 2552452,
at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-367, 2017
WL 5484663, at *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)).
“[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than
that accorded to ‘formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289,
295 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (additional citations
omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to “make reasonable allowances
to protect pro se litigants” from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a
legal education. Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). That said, “even a
pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at
particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal[.]” Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-cv-13320, 2011
WL 3809920, at *2, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (citation omitted); accord Caldwell v. Petros, No.
22-cv-567, 2022 WL 16918287, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2022). After appropriate review, “the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 16 Filed 05/22/26 Page 3 of 6

4
III. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s objections identify no error in Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s findings or
recommendations. See generally Dkt. No. 15. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not raised any
properly preserved objection to the Report-Recommendation, the Court reviews the Report-
Recommendation for clear error. 	See Petersen, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 228-29; Caldwell, 2022 WL
16918287, at *1.
Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that this Court dismiss the Complaint without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 14 at 5-6; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.”). Specifically, with respect to federal question jurisdiction, Magistrate
Judge Evangelista found that “allegations of ‘theft,’ ‘fraud,’ ‘possibly identity theft,’ and a possible
breach-of-contract claim against Liberty Mutual . . . do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” Dkt. No. 14 at 5 (citing, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (stating that
“district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws or treaties of the United States”)). Accordingly, the Court finds no clear error in the Report-
Recommendation’s determination that the Complaint asserts no basis for federal question
jurisdiction.
Magistrate Judge Evangelista also concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish a basis for
diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 6. Diversity jurisdiction lies “where the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between citizens of different
States[.]” 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 	Specifically, Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that
Plaintiff “arguably established” complete diversity of citizenship between all the Parties, as
Plaintiff alleges that she is a citizen of New York and that Defendants are citizens of Missouri and
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 16 Filed 05/22/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Massachusetts. See Dkt. No. 14 at 4-6 (citing, inter alia, Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3 (alleging that Liberty
Mutual has an address in Boston, Massachusetts and Enterprise has an address in St. Louis,
Missouri)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (noting that a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of
the state where it has been incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business).
However, Magistrate Judge Evangelista concluded that the amount in controversy does not
meet the threshold of $75,000, as Plaintiff “expressly seeks to recover damages between $6,000
and $8,000.” 	Dkt. No. 14 at 6 (citing Deswert v. Travelers Com. Ins. Co., No. 24-cv-278
(AMN/TWD), 2025 WL 416765, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2025) (finding “‘legal certainty’ that the
$70,000 stated on the face of the [c]omplaint does not exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold”
(citations omitted))); see also Dkt. No. 1 at 4 (alleging that Enterprise stole approximately $6,000
worth of Plaintiff’s personal belongings and charged her debit card approximately $1,700).
Accordingly, the Court also finds no clear error in the Report-Recommendation’s determination
that the action fails to meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.
Finally, the Court finds no clear error with respect to Magistrate Judge Evangelista’s
recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. See Dkt. No. 14 at 6
(noting that any amendment would be futile, as the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
clear).
Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error, and found none, the Court
adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 14, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 16 Filed 05/22/26 Page 5 of 6

6
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice and
without leave to amend; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, Dkt. No. 3, be
DISMISSED as moot; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant Liberty Mutual’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. Nos. 8, 11, be
DISMISSED as moot; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 22, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 16 Filed 05/22/26 Page 6 of 6