Fortune v. NH Department of Safety et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
WILLIAM E. FORTUNE
v. 	Case No. 25-cv-00377-SM-TSM
NH DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Self-represented Plaintiff, William E. Fortune, brings this suit (Doc. No. 1) for injunctive
relief 	against 	the 	New 	Hampshire 	Department 	of 	Safety, 	Division 	of 	Motor 	Vehicles
(“Department”), New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte, the National Service Bureau, Inc.
(“NSB”), and Farmers Insurance, seeking, among other things, to restore his driver’s license and
registration. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Farmers Ins. & Replace with State Farm Mutual is
before the court for a report and recommendation.1 Doc. No. 3. For the reasons that follow, the
court recommends that the district judge grant Plaintiff’s motion.
BACKGROUND
The court draws the following facts from Plaintiff’s complaint. Doc. No. 1. This matter
stems from a July 11, 2024, automobile accident involving Plaintiff. 	See id. at pgs. 4-5. 	The
accident led to a claim for property damage, which was paid by State Farm Mutual on behalf of its
insured. See id. at pg. 4. On February 5, 2025, the NSB sent Plaintiff a Notice of Insurance Claim
for $15,016.92 on behalf of their client, State Farm Mutual. Id. The notice stated that State Farm
Mutual “paid $15,016.92 in damages on behalf of their insured” and demanded payment from
1 Although filed as a motion to dismiss, the court deems the filing as a motion to amend because
Plaintiff seeks to substitute a party.
Case 1:25-cv-00377-SM-TSM Document 4 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 4

2
Plaintiff. Id. On February 14, 2025, NSB sent a letter to the Department requesting the suspension
of Plaintiff’s driver’s license and vehicle registration due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the requested
amount. Id. at pg. 5.
The Department notified Plaintiff, on February 20, 2025, of the indefinite suspension of
Plaintiff’s operating privileges arising from his nonpayment of NSB’s demand. 	Id. 	To lift the
suspension, the Department required Plaintiff to meet several conditions, including paying a
$100.00 restoration fee, providing a security or a signed settlement agreement resolving the claim
for property damage with State Farm (or an approved conditional payment plan for the amount
owed), and a form SR-22 proof of insurance. Id. On or about March 9, 2025, Plaintiff requested
an administrative hearing on the matter. 	Id. 	Following the hearing, Plaintiff received a second
notice of suspension dated June 16, 2025. See id. at pgs. 5-6. Plaintiff requested a second hearing,
but the Department denied his request. See id. at pg. 6. Plaintiff alleges that during “subsequent
calls to [the Department],” he was told to “pay the Insurance Company.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff further
alleges that during a call with a supervisor at the Department on August 29, 2025, Plaintiff asked,
“under what law they have the right to suspend” his license and registration, to which the
supervisor informed him it was “protocol.” Id.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on September 29, 2025, alleging that the Department and other
state actors violated state and federal laws. 	See generally Doc. No. 1. 	Plaintiff now moves to
dismiss Farmers Insurance from this lawsuit and to add State Farm Mutual as a Defendant. See
Doc. No. 3 at pg. 1.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15 sets out the requirements for amended and
supplemental pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Rule 15(a)(1) provides that a party may “amend
Case 1:25-cv-00377-SM-TSM Document 4 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 4

3
its pleading once as a matter of course” no later than 21 days after serving it. 	Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(1)(A). 	Moreover, “a party may make a Rule 15(a) amendment to add, substitute, or drop
parties to the action.” See Washington Tr. Advisors, Inc. v. Arnold, 669 F. Supp. 3d 35, 41 (D.
Mass. 2023) (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff moves to substitute State Farm for Farmers Insurance. 	Under the federal
rules, Plaintiff may amend his Complaint as a matter of course no later than 21 days after serving
it. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 	Plaintiff filed the Complaint on September 29. 	The court issued
summonses by mail on October 7. Plaintiff filed the motion to amend on October 9, 2025, just
two days after the court issued the Summonses. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is timely,
and he may amend without leave to correct or substitute parties. 	Accordingly, the court
recommends that the district judge grant the motion under Rule 15(a). See Arnold, 669 F. Supp.
3d at 41.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends that the district judge grant Plaintiff’s
motion to amend (Doc. No. 3). If the district judge accepts this recommendation, the Clerk’s office
shall substitute State Farm for Farmers Insurance on the docket. The Clerk’s office shall also issue
the summons form attached to Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 4(b), allowing the Plaintiff to serve
process on State Farm.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of
receipt of this notice. The objection period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file any
objection within the specified time waives the right to appeal the district court's Order. See Santos-
Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016). 	Only those issues raised in the
Case 1:25-cv-00377-SM-TSM Document 4 Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 4

4
written objections “‘are subject to review in the district court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by
such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Id. (citations omitted).
______________________________
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
October 29, 2025
cc: 	William E. Fortune, pro se
Counsel of record
Case 1:25-cv-00377-SM-TSM Document 4 Filed 10/29/25 Page 4 of 4