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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
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 ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...