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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
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 ...