Flores v. Liberty Mutual Insurance et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
VALERIE FLORES,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1:25-CV-1730
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE and 	(AMN/PJE)
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR a/k/a
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Valerie Flores
P.O. Box 1110 ACP 5749
Albany, New York 12201
Plaintiff pro se
PAUL J. EVANGELISTA
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER1
Pro se plaintiff Valerie Flores (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on December
10, 2025, with the filing of a complaint. See Dkt. No. 1.2 Plaintiff has not paid the filing
fee and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkt. No. 2.3 The
undersigned has reviewed plaintiff’s IFP application and determines that she financially
1 This matter was referred to the undersigned for Report-Recommendation and Order pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.3(c).
2 On February 4, 2026, this Court implemented a prefiling injunction stating that plaintiff may not commence
any new actions in this District without proper permission of the chief judge, as well as a revocation of her
MFT privileges. See 1:26-pf-0001 (BKS), In re Valerie Flores. As this action was commenced before the
entry of that prefiling injunction, it does not apply to this case.
3 	Plaintiff also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. See Dkt. No. 3.
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 8

qualifies to proceed IFP.4 Plaintiff generally alleges that defendants Enterprise Rent-A-
Car stole her personal belongings out of a rental car and charged her for the rental of
the vehicle, despite her claim that her automobile insurance company, defendant Liberty
Mutual Insurance, was required to pay for the rental, which she alleges they have not
done. See Dkt. No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without opportunity to amend
I. Initial Review
A. Legal Standards
28 U.S.C. § 1915 directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, “the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 	28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).5 	“Thus, it is a court’s responsibility to determine that a plaintiff may
properly maintain his complaint before permitting him to proceed further with his action.”
Praileau v. Fischer, 930 F. Supp. 2d 383, 394 (N.D.N.Y. 2013).
Where, as here, the plaintiff proceeds pro se, “the court must construe his
submissions liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest.” 	Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223, 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As the Second Circuit stated,
[t]here are many cases in which we have said that a pro se litigant is
entitled to special solicitude, that a pro se litigant’s submissions must be
4 Plaintiff is advised that although she has been granted IFP status, she is still required to pay any fees and
costs that could be incurred in this matter.
5 These requirements apply equally to non-prisoner pro se litigants. See N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.3(d) (“Unless
the Court orders otherwise, any civil action that a non-prisoner pro se litigant commences shall be referred
to a Magistrate Judge for the purpose of review under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §1915A when
an application to proceed in forma pauperis is filed.”).
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 8

construed liberally, and that such submissions must be read to raise the
strongest arguments that they suggest. 	At the same time, our cases
have also indicated that we cannot read into pro se submissions claims
that are not consistent with the pro se litigant’s allegations, or arguments
that the submissions themselves do not suggest, that we should not
excuse frivolous or vexatious filings by pro se litigants, and that pro se
status does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of
procedural and substantive law. . . .
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks, citations, and footnote omitted); see also Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537
F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (“On occasions too numerous to count, we have reminded
district courts that when [a] plaintiff proceeds pro se, . . . a court is obligated to construe
his pleadings liberally.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, the Court
is not required to accept unsupported allegations that are devoid of sufficient facts or
claims. Although detailed allegations are not required at the pleading stage, the complaint
must still include enough facts to provide the defendants with notice of the claims against
them and the grounds upon which these claims are based. 	See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
Ultimately, the plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” 	Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“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.”).
“The [Second Circuit]’s ‘special solicitude’ for pro se pleadings has its limits,
because pro se pleadings still must comply with . . . the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”6
Kastner v. Tri State Eye, No. 19-CV-10668 (CM), 2019 WL 6841952, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.
6 Hereafter, “Fed. R. Civ. P.”
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 8

13, 2019) (quoting Ruotolo v. IRS, 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994)).7 	Specifically, Rule 8
provides that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain, among other
things, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” 	FED. R. CIV . P. 8(a)(2). 	Further, notwithstanding the liberal pleading standard
afforded pro se litigants, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may not
preside over cases if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Uzoefune v. Am. Auto Shield,
LLC, No. 18CV03441, 2018 WL 5624149, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2018) (citing
Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 700-01 (2d Cir. 2000)).8
II. Discussion
A. Plaintiff’s Complaint9
Affording 	Plaintiff 	special 	solicitude, 	she 	alleges 	that 	defendant 	corporation
Enterprise Rent-A-Car stole her personal belongings out of a rental car and charged her
for the rental of the vehicle. See Compl. She further alleges that Liberty Mutual Insurance
failed in its duty to reimburse her for the cost of the rental. See Dkt. No. 1 at 4. 	Her
complaint alleges diversity of citizenship as a basis for federal court jurisdiction. See id.
at 3.
In support of her asserted basis for diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff alleges that she
is a citizen of New York, and that defendants are citizens of Missouri and Massachusetts.
7 All unpublished opinions cited in this Report-Recommendation and Order, unless otherwise noted, have
been provided to plaintiff. The Court does not provide a copy of Katsner, as it has been provided with
several decisions in plaintiff’s other cases.
8 The Court does not provide a copy of Uzoefune as it provided it to plaintiff along with its Report-
Recommendation & Order in Flores v. Carry-On Trailer, et al., 1:25-CV-1731 (AMN/PJE), Dkt. No. 12-1.
9 Plaintiff included a copy of a Participant Identification Card with her complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 1-1. This
attachment has also been reviewed in connection with the initial review of plaintiff’s complaint. See Sira v.
Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 67 (2d Cir. 2004) (“A complaint is deemed to include any written instrument attached
to it as an exhibit, materials incorporated in it by reference, and documents that, although not incorporated
by reference, are integral to the complaint.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 8

See Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Plaintiff alleges the amount in controversy is “$6,000-$8,000” and
she demands immediate reimbursement. See id. at 4, 5.
B. Analysis
Section 1331 provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
1331. “A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when he or she pleads a colorable
claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Koso v. Haegele, No.
18-CV-04400, 2018 WL 6531496, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2018) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y
& H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006)).10 Additionally, section 1332 provides that district
courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy
exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1). Under § 1332, a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of its state of
incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(c)(1).
Reading plaintiff’s pro se complaint liberally, she has failed to present a federal
question. Her allegations of “theft,” “fraud,” “possibly identity theft,” and a possible
breach-of-contract claim against Liberty Mutual Insurance do not arise under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. “The Court cannot find subject
matter jurisdiction based solely on Plaintiff's purported federal claim, which is neither
well-pleaded nor factually supported.” Holmes v. Parade Place, LLC, No. 12 CIV. 6299,
2013 WL 5405541, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2013). The undersigned next assesses
whether plaintiff can state a claim pursuant to this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
10 The Court does not provide a copy of Koso as it provided it to plaintiff along with its Report-
Recommendation & Order in Flores v. Carry-On Trailer, et al., 1:25-CV-1731 (AMN/PJE), Dkt. No. 12-1.
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 5 of 8

Plaintiff’s complaint suggests that she resides in a different state than that of
either defendants’ place of incorporation. Specifically, she alleges that defendant
Liberty Mutual Insurance has an address in Boston, Massachusetts.11 Similarly, plaintiff
provides an address for Enterprise Rent-A-Car in St. Louis, Missouri.12 	Under § 1332,
a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state where
it has its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).13 Although plaintiff
has arguably established complete diversity of citizenship, Owen Equip. & Eriction Co.
v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978), she has failed to establish the amount in
controversy requirement.
Plaintiff expressly seeks to recover damages between $6,000 and $8,000. From
her description of her damages, “there is legal certainty” that the amount in controversy
does not meet the threshold of $75,000. Deswert v. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co., No.
6:24-CV-00278 (AMN/TWD), 2025 WL 416765, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2025) (citing GW
Holdings Grp. LLC v. U.S. Highland, Inc., 794 F. App’x 49, 51 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary
order)). The undersigned therefore concludes that plaintiff has not established a basis
for diversity jurisdiction. 	Given the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the Court is
constrained to remand this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall
be remanded.”). Given this Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction is clear,
amendment would be futile.
11 An internet search confirms that Liberty Mutual’s Principal Place of business is in Boston,
Massachusetts.
12 Plaintiff appears to be naming a specific branch in St. Louis, as she refers to the “Taylor Family.” 	See
Dkt. No. 1. An internet search provides that Enterprise Rent-A-Car has a principal place of business in
Clayton, Missouri.
13 Although not reaching the venue issue here, the undersigned notes the complaint also fails to allege
any conduct occurred in the Northern District of New York.
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 6 of 8

III. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is
GRANTED; and it is
RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be DISMISSED without
prejudice and without opportunity to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and
it is further
RECOMMENDED, that plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 3)
be DISMISSED as moot; and it is
RECOMMENDED, that defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance’s Motion to Dismiss
(Dkt. Nos. 8, 11) be DISMISSED as moot14; and it is
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Report-Recommendation & Order
on all parties in accordance with Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), plaintiff has FOURTEEN (14) days within
which to file written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with
the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. See Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d
85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d
Cir. 1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV . P. 6(a), 72.15
14 The undersigned observes that defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, yet, this Court had not yet ruled on plaintiff’s pending in forma pauperis
application, and, thus, never approved service on defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
15 If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Report-Recommendation and Order by mail, three
(3) additional days will be added to the fourteen-day (14) period, meaning that you have seventeen (17)
days from the date the Report-Recommendation and Order was mailed to you to serve and file objections.
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 7 of 8

Date: 	April 30, 2026
Albany, New York
See F ED. R. C IV . P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday,
then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
See id. § 6(a)(1)(c).
Case 1:25-cv-01730-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 8 of 8