Feingold v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance ( 2013 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 12-2664
_____________
ALLEN L. FEINGOLD;
PHILLIP GODDARD
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY
Allen L. Feingold, Appellant
_____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 2-11-cv-06309
District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 22, 2013
____________
Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: April 23, 2013)
____________
OPINION
____________
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Allen L. Feingold1 appeals pro se the dismissal of his claims against State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. We will affirm.
I.
On August 6, 1998, Phillip Goddard was injured in a car accident caused by an
uninsured or underinsured driver. Sometime thereafter, Goddard retained Feingold, then
a licensed attorney, to assist him in pursuing a claim under the uninsured motor vehicle
provision of his State Farm policy. Feingold moved to compel arbitration after State
Farm refused to pay benefits or appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate Goddard’s claim.
Eventually, a neutral arbitrator from Delaware was selected. State Farm then demanded
that Goddard undergo a physical examination, but never arranged for the examination. In
December 2010, Goddard, represented by new counsel, attempted to schedule an
arbitration hearing. State Farm refused to proceed with arbitration, asserting that
Goddard’s claim was now time-barred.
On October 7, 2011, Feingold and Goddard brought claims against State Farm for
breach of contract and bad faith in violation of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8371. On November
29, 2011, State Farm moved for dismissal for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) and for
failure to state a sufficient claim under Rule 12(b)(6). On April 3, 2012, the District
Court granted State Farm’s motion with respect to Feingold and ordered Feingold to
1
This is not the first time Feingold, a disbarred attorney, has appeared before us on a
frivolous appeal from the dismissal of a meritless claim.
2
cease participation in the case. After the Court denied reconsideration, Feingold moved
for Rule 54(b) certification. The Court certified its judgment as final under Rule 54(b) on
May 9, 2012. This appeal followed.
II.
The District Court concluded that, as a threshold jurisdictional matter, Feingold
had not alleged an Article III injury, and, therefore, lacked standing to pursue his claims
against State Farm. We agree, and after review of the briefs and appendices submitted by
the parties, we find no basis for disturbing the exceedingly thorough and well-reasoned
April 3, 2012 opinion of the District Court. We thus affirm the order of the District Court
substantially for the reasons set forth in its opinion.
3