BACKGROUND
See the video at https://rumble.com/v79dts2-crime-doesnt-pay.html and at https://youtu.be/dw0f4goCbxA, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Plaintiff:
Andrew J. Mitchell, an incarcerated individual proceeding pro se sued Pandit Law Firm, LLC, on behalf of a corporation that was controlled by Mitchell who had operated Mitchell Adjusting International LLC (MAI), a Texas limited liability company.
According to the US Attorney:
A Texas man (Mitchell) acting as an insurance adjuster who cheated an Albany church out of millions of dollars paid out by its insurance company to repair its facilities heavily damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018 was sentenced to serve more than 19 years in prison and ordered to pay nearly $4 million in restitution to victims in several states.
Andrew Mitchell, formerly Andrew Aga, 46, of Houston, Texas, was sentenced to serve 235 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $2,895,903.01 in restitution to the Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company. In addition, Mitchell was ordered to pay $1,082,993.41 to other victims after he admitted in open court to similar crimes in Texas and Louisiana
Mitchell’s sentence was ordered to run concurrently to a prison sentence imposed in the 29th Judicial District Court of St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, in Case Number 2023-CR-26, at the conclusion of which he will continue to serve the remaining balance of 18 months imprisonment in this case.
Claims Asserted:
Mitchell claimed Pandit breached an oral/implied-in-fact contract and also alleged account stated, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment/money had and received, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment, accounting, and constructive trust.
Underlying Conduct:
Alleged failure by Defendant to remit earned compensation on insurance property-damage claims in Louisiana. Mitchell alleged settlement checks and invoices attached to the complaint identify MAI, not Mitchell individually, as the payee and service provider.
Mitchell purported he sued “doing business as” MAI and alternatively relies on an alleged assignment of MAI’s claims to himself.
LAW - 28 U.S.C. § 1654:
Parties may conduct their own cases personally or by counsel, but only with respect to their own interests. Limited liability companies and other artificial entities may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.
Federal courts routinely hold that a non-attorney individual cannot proceed pro se on assigned claims belonging to a corporation or LLC when the entity remains the real party in interest. A district court may dismiss claims on its own motion so long as the procedure is fair, meaning notice and an opportunity to respond are provided.
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS
The court determined that MAI was the real party in interest, not Mitchell individually, because:
1 Settlement checks listed MAI as payee.
2 Invoices submitted with the complaint were issued by MAI.
Even assuming the validity of the alleged assignment of MAI’s claims to Mitchell, such an assignment merely places Mitchell “in MAI’s shoes” and does not authorize him to litigate pro se on behalf of the LLC. The court emphasized that assignments made solely to evade the counsel requirement are “colorable only” and insufficient to confer standing for pro se litigation.
Because MAI can appear in federal court only through counsel, and Mitchell is not an attorney, the lawsuit cannot proceed in its current posture. The magistrate judge found that conditional dismissal, coupled with notice and time to retain counsel, satisfies procedural fairness requirements.
CONCLUSION
The magistrate judge recommended conditional dismissal without prejudice of the lawsuit unless Mitchell appears through licensed counsel within 30 days of adoption of the memorandum and recommendation. The parties are advised of their right to file written objections within 14 days, with failure to do so limiting appellate review.
There is no reason to permit any evasion of the general rule of corporate representation by counsel by the simple expedient of the assignment of corporate claims to the pro se plaintiff. In light of the policy reasons for preventing a lay person from representing a corporation in litigation, the federal courts have, in cases governed by federal law, disapproved any circumvention of the rule by the procedural device of an assignment of the corporation’s claims to the lay individual.
ZALMA OPINION
Andrew Mitchell, formerly Andrew Aga, an admitted felon serving two long sentences sued, acting as his own lawyer, in Federal Court while incarcerated to collect the benefits he thinks he earned by his multiple felonies. The Magistrate Judge refused to bother the District Judge by recommending, on his own motion, dismissal so they court does nothing to support Mitchell’s criminal conduct. He will serve 235 months in prison with no parole in the federal system. Note he has become crazy and filed at least the following: Mitchell v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Civil Action 3:26-cv-00132 (S.D. Tex. Apr 30, 2026), Mitchell v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., Civil Action 3:26-cv-00129 (S.D. Tex. Apr 30, 2026), Mitchell v. Allstate Ins. Co., Civil Action 3:26-cv-00088 (S.D. Tex. Apr 30, 2026); Mitchell v. Maison Ins. Co., Civil Action 3:26-cv-00131 (S.D. Tex. Apr 30, 2026).
(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://gbarryzalma.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://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
