Jennifer Lynette Rawlings v. Lockton Affinity, LLC et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas addresses motions in Jennifer Lynette Rawlings’s suit against Lockton Affinity, LLC and related Lockton companies arising from alleged injuries during an eyelash-extension service. The court denies as moot the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denies the request for governmental investigations, and partially grants and partially denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Counts I, II, and IV against the Lockton Companies are dismissed with prejudice as time-barred, while those claims against Lockton Affinity and the civil RICO claim may proceed.

Holdings

1. The present suit was not barred by claim preclusion because the prior dismissal of Lockton Affinity for unripeness was without prejudice and was not a final judgment on the merits.
2. Counts I, II, and IV against Lockton Affinity were not barred by the statute of limitations because Kansas's savings statute permitted refiling within six months after the prior action failed otherwise than on the merits.
3. Counts I, II, and IV against the Lockton Companies were barred by the statute of limitations and were dismissed with prejudice.
4. Count III, plaintiff's civil RICO claim, was not barred by the statute of limitations because the action was filed within four years of accrual.
5. The Corrected Second Amended Complaint satisfied Rule 8(a)(2) because it provided a factual recitation describing plaintiff's theory of liability followed by four identifiable claims.
6. The court denied plaintiff's Motion for Order because she failed to provide factual or legal grounds for the requested relief and the court lacked authority to initiate or order criminal investigations or prosecutions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the claims were barred by claim preclusion based on the prior dismissal of Lockton Affinity in Rawlings I.
2. Whether Counts I, II, and IV against the Lockton Companies were barred by Kansas's two-year statute of limitations.
3. Whether the civil RICO claim was barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations.
4. Whether Rule 15(c) permitted the claims against the Lockton Companies in this new action to relate back to the claims filed in Rawlings I.
5. Whether the Corrected Second Amended Complaint violated Rule 8(a)(2) by failing to provide a short and plain statement of the claims.
6. Whether the court had authority to order or initiate federal and state criminal and civil investigations requested by plaintiff.

Disposition

other