Andrew Kampuries v. Lyft, Inc.

Summary

The document is a recommended ruling on Andrew Kampuries's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and complaint against Lyft, Inc. The court recommends denying in forma pauperis status and dismissing the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount-in-controversy requirement was not plausibly established. It also concludes that the complaint insufficiently alleges a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, while recommending leave to amend.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff did not demonstrate that he was unable to pay or give security for the costs of the action while providing for the necessities of life, so the court recommended denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. The complaint did not plausibly establish to a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and the court therefore recommended dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
3. The complaint failed to state a plausible Connecticut-law claim because it did not adequately allege the contractual rights allegedly impeded, the relevant compensation terms or changes, or that Lyft acted with a dishonest or bad-faith purpose.
4. The complaint should be dismissed with leave to amend because the court could not rule out the possibility that Plaintiff might cure the jurisdictional and pleading defects.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff demonstrated that he was unable to pay the filing fee so as to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly established the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Connecticut-law claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
4. Whether dismissal should be accompanied by leave to amend.

Disposition

other