Wilson v. Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CARLOS DARIO WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-08909-EMC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Docket No. 17
Plaintiff Carlos Dario Wilson, proceeding pro se, has filed suit against Defendants Horizon
Actuarial Services, LLC (“Horizon”); Unite Here, Local 2 (“Union”); Mike Casey; and Anand
Singh.1 In his complaint, Mr. Wilson alleges that he was formerly an employee of the Union; that
the Union contracted with Horizon to provide certain services to Union employees; that Horizon
suffered a data breach; and that Mr. Wilson was injured a result.2 According to Mr. Wilson, the
data breach “made possible violent stalking[,] cyber stalking, witness intimidation, obstruction,
harassment, rape, torture and the human trafficking by third party actors believed to be the agents
and associates of former Unite Here[] Local 2 . . . leader, Mike Casey.”3 Compl., ECF Page 3.
1 Mr. Casey, as alleged, is the former president of the Union. Mr. Singh appears to be the current
president.
2 As alleged by Mr. Wilson, a class action was brought against Horizon because of the data breach.
See Sherwood, et al. v. Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-01495-ELR (N.D. Ga.).
That lawsuit settled, but Mr. Wilson opted out of the class action settlement.
3 Attached as Exhibit C to the complaint is a letter written by Mr. Wilson. In the letter, Mr.
Wilson seems to claim that the alleged wrongdoers are, in fact, family members and others
associated with them. See Compl., Ex. C (ECF Page 3-4). Mr. Wilson brought a separate lawsuit
making similar charges; that case has been dismissed. See Wilson v. Tahbazof, No. C-23-5624
TLT (N.D. Cal.).
Case 3:25-cv-08909-EMC Document 22 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Mr. Wilson also indicates that the goal of the “bad actors” was “to steal his identity and defraud
[him] and his family of his retirement investment accounts and his family’s estates.” Compl., ECF
Page 5; see also Compl., ECF Pages 9-10 (referring to his own financial accounts held with “San
Francisco Federal Credit Union, Merrill Lynch, Fidelity Investments, US Bank, Wells Fargo[,]
Bank of America, ING, Cash App, PayPal and others” as well as his “grandparent’s and parent’s
estates”).
Currently pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Horizon. Horizon
moves to dismiss on several grounds:
(1) There is no diversity jurisdiction because, as alleged, both Mr. Wilson and Horizon are
citizens of California. See ee Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d
894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“hold[ing] that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of
every state of which its owners/members are citizens”); Compl., ECF Page 3 (alleging
that some of the members of Horizon – an LLC – are citizens of California).
(2) There is no federal question jurisdiction because Mr. Wilson has pled only state law
causes of action. See Compl., ECF Page 4 (listing state law claims and also stating that
claims pled in Sherwood – all based on state law – were being incorporated). Mr.
Wilson’s passing reference to RICO and the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act in pleading a claim under Georgia law (violations of O.C.G.A. §
13-6-11) is insufficient to give rise to federal claims. See, e.g., Newtok Vill. v. Patrick,
21 F.4th 608, 616 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that “the ‘mere reference of a federal statute
in a pleading will not convert a state law claim into a federal cause of action if the
federal statute is not a necessary element of the state law claim and no preemption
exists’”).
(3) Subject matter jurisdiction is also lacking because Mr. Wilson’s complaint is patently
insubstantial or obviously frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6
(1989) (stating that “[a] patently insubstantial complaint may be dismissed . . . for want
of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)”); Grant
v. Carns, No. 22-cv-02932-SVK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179136, at *10 (N.D. Cal.
Case 3:25-cv-08909-EMC Document 22 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Sept. 30, 2022) (noting that “[a] federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims that
are ‘essentially fictitious,’ ‘wholly insubstantial,’ ‘obviously frivolous,’ or ‘obviously
without merit’”).
(4) Mr. Wilson lacks standing because the injuries he claims are not traceable to any
alleged wrongdoing by Horizon. See Jones v. L.A. Cent. Plaza LLC, 74 F.4th 1053,
1057 (9th Cir. 2023) (stating that, “‘[t]o satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a
plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and
particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury
is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as
opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision’”); Mot. at 9, 11 (emphasizing that “the alleged stalking, harassment, and
trafficking scheme in this case began before the [data security] incident” and that third
parties, not Horizon, engaged in these acts) (emphasis added).
Mr. Wilson has failed to file an opposition in response to Horizon’s motion to dismiss. In
light of the failure to oppose, the Court hereby orders as follows.
• The hearing on Horizon’s motion to dismiss is VACATED.
• The Court orders Mr. Wilson to show cause as to why his claims against Horizon
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In his response to this order to
show cause, Mr. Wilson must also address the merits of Horizon’s motion to
dismiss.
• In addition, Mr. Wilson is ordered to show cause as to why his claims against the
remaining defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. It does not appear that Mr. Wilson has served the
remaining defendants. In addition, Horizon’s arguments on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction are equally applicable to the remaining defendants.
• Mr. Wilson’s response to this order to show cause shall be filed by March 4, 2026.
Mr. Wilson is expressly forewarned that, if he does not file a response by this
deadline, then his case will automatically be dismissed based on (1) failure to
Case 3:25-cv-08909-EMC Document 22 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
prosecute and (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A final judgment will issue
and his case before this Court will be closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 18, 2026
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-08909-EMC Document 22 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 4