Arrest for Insurance Fraud is not a Violation of Constitutional Rights
Court Give Plaintiffs Acting as their Own Lawyer a Second Chance
Post number 5310
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gJ5yrK8m, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gSPcXJ6A and at https://lnkd.in/gfdvbaMT, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Arin Sutton et al v. Lori Pozuelos et al., No. 5:25-cv-03544-MRA-MAR, United States District Court, C.D. California (March 20, 2026) Plaintiffs Darin Sutton and Youtha Baker, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple defendants, including Lori Pozuelos, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege violations of their constitutional rights, though the complaint’s factual allegations are stated in general terms and lack specific detail as to the actions of each defendant.
Plaintiffs are independent contractors who completed work in Missouri. Plaintiffs filed multiple claims with insurance companies. They allege one of the insurance companies filed a “suspected fraud claim” (SFC) regarding Missouri LLC’s G Mentality and Deverric and Dillon Remodeling. Defendant Pozuelos, an investigator employed by CD and assigned to the California Department of Insurance (“CDI”) Fraud Division was assigned to investigate Plaintiffs’ independent contractor work in Missouri.
LEGAL ISSUES
The Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires dismissal of any action filed in forma pauperis that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against immune defendants. The complaint was brought pursuant to section 1983, which provides a remedy for deprivation of federal rights by persons acting under color of state law.
The central question was whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under section 1983 and satisfied federal pleading standards.
ANALYSIS
The Court found the complaint deficient for lack of specificity regarding the alleged constitutional violations and the actions of each defendant. The Court concluded that, as pleaded, the complaint did not meet the standards required by law and thus warranted dismissal.
DISCUSSION
The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, providing Plaintiffs an opportunity to cure identified deficiencies.
Plaintiffs named Lori Pozuelos, in her Individual and Official Capacity as an Investigator with the California Department of Insurance as a defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that they are independent contractors who completed work in Missouri. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant presented “contradictory and misleading testimony” to a grand jury, which led to their April 2023 arrests without probable cause.
SUIT AGAINST IMMUNE DEFENDANTS
A plaintiff may seek monetary damages under section 1983 from state employees in their individual capacity. However, because a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is no different from a suit against the State itself, state officials sued in their official capacity, like the State itself, are generally entitled to immunity in a section 1983 action.
The Supreme Court has recognized one vital exception to this general rule: When sued for prospective injunctive relief, a state official in his official capacity is considered a ‘person’ for § 1983 purposes, and the Eleventh Amendment will not bar such relief. As the Supreme Court explains, a state official in his or her official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would be a person under § 1983 because official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.
Therefore, a suit for prospective injunctive relief against a state employee in his official capacity may be cognizable when properly pled.
Prosecutors have absolute immunity to suits under section 1983 when the prosecutor acts within the scope of his or her authority and in a quasi-judicial capacity. Since the plaintiffs sued Doe Defendant Prosecutors there was no case against the Doe Defendants pled.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS APPEAR TIME-BARRED
The statute of limitations for section 1983 claims is the applicable state statute of limitations for personal injury actions. In any amended complaint, Plaintiffs should clearly identify the dates for the relevant incidents and explain any basis for tolling of the statute of limitations.
ZALMA OPINION
People who sue in federal court acting as their own lawyer and alleging they are paupers and unable to pay the filing fees sued a California state Insurance Fraud Investigator and unknown prosecutors to stop prosecution. They failed to allege sufficient facts, the suit was dismissed, and the court gave the plaintiffs the right file an amended complaint although the plaintiffs were not worthy of the court’s kindness. The state of California should pursue the arrest and prosecution of the plaintiffs in accordance with the California Insurance Fraud Prevention Act.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Attempt to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing Fails
Post number 5346
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admit-crime-ready-do-time-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-hgyce, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Stealing from Insurers and Employer Gets Defendant Five Years in Prison
In State of Wisconsin v. Jacquelyn R. Harris, No. 2025AP489-CR, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (April 22, 2026) Harris pled no contest and was found guilty. She was sentenced to five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, with restitution ordered in the amounts of $31,086 to Kaliber and $25,000 to Erie Insurance Company.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2022, Jacquelyn R. Harris was charged with theft in a business setting under WIS. STAT. § 943.20(1)(b) (2023-24). Harris, while employed as the office manager for Kaliber Collision Repair in Port ...
Attempt to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing Fails
Post number 5346
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admit-crime-ready-do-time-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-hgyce, see the video at https://rumble.com/v79hhg6-admit-to-crime-and-be-ready-to-do-the-time.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Stealing from Insurers and Employer Gets Defendant Five Years in Prison
In State of Wisconsin v. Jacquelyn R. Harris, No. 2025AP489-CR, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (April 22, 2026) Harris pled no contest and was found guilty. She was sentenced to five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, with restitution ordered in the amounts of $31,086 to Kaliber and $25,000 to Erie Insurance Company.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2022, Jacquelyn R. Harris was charged with theft in a business setting under WIS. STAT. § 943.20(1)(b) (2023-24). Harris, while employed as the office manager for Kaliber Collision Repair in Port ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
