A man wrongly prosecuted for insurance fraud can pursue his civil rights lawsuit.
Chad Lightfoot, et al. v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, et al.
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
A man wrongly prosecuted for insurance fraud can pursue his civil rights lawsuit.
Why it matters
In Lightfoot et al. v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company et al., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana considered a motion to dismiss filed by four Orleans Parish District Attorney defendants against the civil rights claims of Chad Lightfoot and his family. The court's order addresses whether Plaintiffs stated valid claims against those prosecutorial defendants arising from a criminal prosecution that was ultimately dismissed in 2024 after charges of insurance fraud, theft, and perjury were brought against Mr. Lightfoot based on allegations the plaintiffs say were fabricated.
Who it affects
- His spouse
- Their minor children
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Oct 9, 2026
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible appeal to the circuit court.
View possible path
- Decision issued Oct 9, 2026
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible appeal to the circuit court
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
District court
Decision issued
Oct 9, 2026
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
This case began with a 2011 car accident in Orleans Parish involving Chad Lightfoot, who filed insurance claims and later sued his insurers in civil court. Plaintiffs allege that attorneys representing one of those insurers, Progressive, submitted a false affidavit to police claiming Lightfoot fraudulently received a $50,000 payment, a payment that Plaintiffs say never actually occurred and that Progressive's own records did not support. Based on that affidavit, Plaintiffs allege a police detective obtained an arrest warrant without independently verifying its claims, leading to Lightfoot's arrest in January 2015. State police investigators then pursued charges, and Lightfoot was prosecuted for theft over $50,000, automobile insurance fraud, and perjury. Those criminal charges were ultimately dismissed on October 15, 2024. Lightfoot and his spouse filed this lawsuit in Louisiana state court in October 2025, and it was later removed to federal court. The Second Amended Complaint names multiple defendants, including four individuals associated with the Orleans Parish District Attorney's office, referred to collectively as the OPDA Defendants: Eric Cusimano, Craig W. Famularo, Andre C. Gaudin Jr., and Jason Williams. Those defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim. The source text provided covers the background and procedural history of the case but does not include the court's final ruling on the motion to dismiss. The full analysis and holding on that motion are not contained in the excerpt provided. No dissent is mentioned in the available text. The case raises significant questions about the boundaries of prosecutorial immunity, the liability of private parties who allegedly provide false information to law enforcement, and the civil rights of individuals subjected to prosecution based on disputed evidence.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHAD LIGHTFOOT, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs VERSUS NO. 26-434 PROGRESSIVE DIRECT SECTION: “E” (1) INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Eric Cusimano, Craig W. Famularo, Andre C. Gaudin, Jr, and Jason Williams (sometimes referred to collectively as the “OPDA Defendants”).1 Plaintiffs Chad Lightfoot, Geralyn Hawkins, and their minor children (“Plaintiffs”) filed an opposition.2 The OPDA Defendants filed a reply.3 BACKGROUND4 This case arises out of a vehicle accident in Orleans Parish and the subsequent criminal prosecution of Plaintiff Chad Lightfoot for insurance fraud.5 Plaintiffs allege that, on August 29, 2011, Mr. Lightfoot was involved in a vehicle accident in Orleans Parish.6 Mr. Lightfoot filed insurance claims with multiple insurance carriers, including Liberty, Progressive, and others.7 Plaintiffs allege the insurance claim was not “resolve[d]. . . to Mr. Lightfoot’s satisfaction” and, as a result, in 2012, he brought a personal-injury lawsuit 1 R. Doc. 84. 2 R. Doc. 95. 3 R. Doc. 96. 4 These factual allegations are based on the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. R. Doc. 60. 5 Id. 6 Id. at ¶ 85. 7 Id. at¶ 87. Apparently, these are Chad Lightfoot’s underinsured motorist insurance carriers. in Orleans Parish Civil District Court against Progressive and other related defendants (“the underlying civil action”).8 Plaintiffs allege that, on or about September 19, 2014, two of the attorneys representing Progressive in the underlying civil action, Megan Kiefer and Ignatz Kiefer assaulted Mr. Lightfoot inside the Orleans Parish Courthouse in retaliation for bringing the underlying civil action.9 Plaintiffs further allege that, in December 2014, Megan Kiefer prepared and swore to a false affidavit she submitted to the New Orleans Police Department stating that Mr. Lightfoot fraudulently obtained a $50,000 payment from Progressive Insurance Company in connection with the August 29, 2011 accident.10 Plaintiffs allege the affidavit included Megan Kiefer’s statement that, in obtaining the $50,000 payment, Mr. Lightfoot committed perjury, insurance fraud, and filed false public records.11 Plaintiffs allege these statements were false and Progressive’s own records confirmed that Mr. Lightfoot never received a $50,000 payment.12 Plaintiffs allege the Insurance Attorneys representing the Insurance Defendants used this false affidavit to obtain a judgment in the underlying civil action against Mr. Lightfoot and in favor of their clients.13 Plaintiffs further allege that, on August 22, 2016, this judgment was recorded as a judicial mortgage against Mr. Lightfoot’s homestead, which “clouded Mr. Lightfoot’s title and exerted improper financial pressure . . . .”14 Plaintiffs allege that Kristin L. Beckman, counsel for Liberty, “participated in preparing, filing, recording, or enforcing civil judgment and judicial-mortgage materials . . .” and Adam Massey, counsel 8 Id. at ¶¶ 87-88. 9 Id. at ¶ 90. Plaintiffs do not bring a cause of action for damages resulting from this physical altercation. 10 Id. at ¶¶ 95-96. 11 Id. at ¶ 96. 12 Id. at ¶¶ 97-98. 13 Id. at ¶ 124. 14 Id. at ¶¶ 125-27. for Progressive, “participated in preparing, filing, recording, or enforcing civil judgment and judicial-mortgage materials . . . .”15 Plaintiffs allege New Orleans Police Department Detective Frank Denton, without conducting further investigation into the affidavit’s validity, relied on Megan Kiefer’s false affidavit to obtain an arrest warrant for Mr. Lightfoot.16 Plaintiffs allege that, on January 6, 2015, Mr. Lightfoot was arrested pursuant to this warrant.17 Plaintiffs further allege that the Louisiana State Police Insurance Fraud Division began an investigation into Lightfoot’s alleged insurance fraud scheme.18 Plaintiffs allege that Defendant State Police Lieutenant Alan Arcana stated in a police report that Mr. Lightfoot received $50,000 in payments from Progressive, which caused the State of Louisiana to bring criminal charges against him.19 Plaintiff was charged with theft over $50,000, automobile insurance fraud, and perjury.20 Plaintiffs allege Lieutenant Arcana testified that Progressive insurance investigator Glenn Pardiane represented to him that Mr. Lightfoot received a $50,000 payment.21 Plaintiffs allege that, during the criminal proceedings, it was discovered there was no record of a $50,000 insurance payout to Mr. Lightfoot but that, despite this lack of evidence, the OPDA Defendants criminally prosecuted Mr. Lightfoot for insurance fraud.22 Plaintiffs allege the criminal charges against Mr. Lightfoot were dismissed on October 15, 2024.23 15 Id. at ¶¶ 43, 45. 16 Id. at ¶ 107. 17 Id. at ¶ 110. 18 Id. at ¶ 115. 19 Id. at ¶¶ 117-18. 20 Id. at ¶ 107. 21 Id. at ¶ 121. 22 Id. at ¶ 136. 23 Id. at ¶ 142. Mr. Lightfoot and his spouse, Geralyn Hawkins, filed this suit pro se on October 20, 2025 in Orleans Parish Civil District Court.24 In their original petition, Mr. Lightfoot and Ms. Hawkins brought a single claim against “unknown named Defendants” under La. R.S. 15:572.8, which provides compensation to persons wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.25 On November 10, 2025, Mr. Lightfoot and Ms. Hawkins filed a First Amended Petition, adding their minor children as named Plaintiffs and bringing eight counts against various defendants for actions related to Mr. Lightfoot’s criminal prosecution and the civil judgment entered against him and recorded as a judicial mortgage.26 These defendants included Craig W. Famularo and Andre C. Gaudin, Jr, but not Jason Williams and Eric Cusimano.27 On January 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Petition in state court.28 While this petition did not alter or amend any of the causes of action Plaintiffs attempted to
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.