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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
