Gladstein v. Goldfield
| Decision Date | 21 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:18-cv-00926 (VAB),3:18-cv-00926 (VAB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | RUTH GLADSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. SARANN GOLDFIELD, et al., Defendants. |
Ruth Gladstein has sued Sarann Goldfield, Alvin Goldfield1 (the "Goldfields" or "Goldfield Defendants"), Martin Wolf, Esq., and Cohen and Wolf, P.C. (with Mr. Wolf, the "Wolf Defendants") (collectively, "Defendants"). She alleges intentional interference with inheritance, undue influence or coercion, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, reckless indifference, larceny, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Defendants; negligence and breach of fiduciary duties against the Wolf Defendants; and negligence and breach of fiduciary duties against the Goldfields. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 (June 4, 2018) ("Compl.").
The Court dismissed Ms. Gladstein's claims against the Wolf Defendants, Order, ECF No. 115 (July 31, 2020) ("Wolf Dismissal Order"), and denied her motion for reconsideration of this dismissal, Order, ECF No. 123 (Aug. 28, 2020) ("Reconsideration Order"). In the interim, the Court issued an order requiring Ms. Gladstein to show cause as to why her remaining claims against the Goldfield should not be dismissed based on the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 117 (July 31, 2020) ("Show Cause Order").
For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES Ms. Gladstein's claims against the Goldfields.
Familiarity with the factual and procedural background in this case is assumed. See Wolf Dismissal Order.
On July 31, 2020, the Court ordered Ms. Gladstein to show cause as to why claims against the Goldfields should not be dismissed based on either the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Show Cause Order.
That same day, the Court granted the Wolf Defendants' motion to dismiss, see Dismissal Order, and denied as moot Ms. Gladstein's motion for summary judgment and motion to set aside, Order, ECF No. 116 (July 31, 2020); see also Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 89 (May 15, 2020); Mot. to Set Aside Order Granting Mot. to Deny or Defer Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 92 (June 3, 2020).
On August 10, 2020, Ms. Gladstein moved for reconsideration with supporting materials. Pl.'s Mot.; Mem. of L. in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Recons. of Ruling and Order Dismissing Case, ECF No. 119-1 (Aug. 10, 2020) ("Pl.'s Mem.").
On August 11, 2020, the Wolf Defendants opposed Ms. Gladstein's motion. Mem. Opposing Pl.'s Mot. for Recons. of Defs. Martin Wolf and Cohen and Wolf P.C., ECF No. 120 (Aug. 11, 2020) ("Wolf Opp'n").
On the same day, Ms. Gladstein responded to the Wolf Defendants' opposition. Pl.'s Resp. to Allegation that Her Motion for Recons. was Untimely, ECF No. 121 (Aug. 11, 2020).
On August 27, 2020, Ms. Gladstein responded to the Court's Show Cause Order. Pl.'s Resp. to Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 122 (Aug. 27, 2020) ("Pl.'s Resp.").
On September 16, 2020, the Goldfields replied to Ms. Gladstein's response. Reply, ECF No. 124 (Sept. 16, 2020) ( ).
On March 19, 2021, the Court denied Ms. Gladstein's motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration Order.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, "provides that 'once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.'" Faraday v. Blanchette, 596 F. Supp. 2d 508, 514 (D. Conn. 2009) (quoting Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 789 (2d Cir. 1994)).
In cases involving prior litigation between or among the parties, a court must determine if it is precluded from adjudicating some or all of the claims because of previous rulings on the merits of those claims. The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, generally dictates that "a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action." Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5 (1979). The related doctrine of and is "necessarily determined if, in the absence of a determination of the issue, the judgment could not have been validly rendered." Lighthouse Landings, Inc. v. Conn. Light andPower Co., 300 Conn. 325, 343 (Conn. 2011). "The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel protect 'litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and [to promote] judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.'" Giuliani, 143 F.3d at 644, (quoting Parklane Hosiery Co., 439 U.S. at 326).
In order for collateral estoppel to bar the relitigation of an issue in a later proceeding, the issue concerning which relitigation is sought to be estopped must be identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding. The court must determine what facts were necessarily determined in the first trial, and must then assess whether the party is attempting to relitigate those facts in the second proceeding.
Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC, 301 Conn. 194, 206 (2011) (internal citations and alterations omitted).
"[U]nder federal law, a court may raise the issue of collateral estoppel sua sponte." Stinnett v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 803 F. App'x 505, 508 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order); see, e.g., Curry v. City of Syracuse, 316 F.3d 324, 331 (2d Cir. 2003) (); Doe v. Pfrommer, 148 F.3d 73, 80 (2d Cir. 1998) ().
As explained in the Show Cause Order, on July 30, 2007, after multiple hearings held at the Court of Probate in the District of Bridgeport, Judge Paul J. Ganim issued a decree finding that Ms. Klavir's "Last Will and Testament dated June 4, 1997 was duly executed; the testator had sufficient testamentary capacity, and no evidence of undue influence was presented." Ex. C to Mem. of L in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss of Defs. Martin Wolf and Cohen and Wolf, ECF No. 77-1, at 64-66 (Feb. 28, 2020) ("Probate Decree"). Judge Ganim also found the following:
At [a] hearing [on December 4, 2006], Attorney Cooney on behalf of Ruth Gladstein requested the original Frances Klavir Living Trust dated October 2, 1992 and the Frances Klavir Living Trust Second Amendment dated June 4, 1997 be filed with the Court for examination by an expert witness. All parties agreed that said documents would be field [sic] by Attorney Martin Wolf as trustee and said documents shall be filed under seal. Said trust was inspected by the opponent's expert at the Court. . . . On June 4, 2007, a will contest was scheduled in the above matter. . . . Attorney Cooney, on behalf of Ruth Gladstein presented no evidence in support of her objection to the admission of the will.
Id. at 2. Judge Ganim further found that the Klavir Will was "duly proved as the decedent's will, and the same is approved and admitted to probate as the LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT of the decedent," and appointed Ms. Goldfield as the executrix of her mother's estate. Id. at 3 (emphasis in original).
Ms. Gladstein's remaining claims against the Goldfields concern the administration of Ms. Klavir's estate, the Frances Klavir Living Trust ("Trust"), and Ms. Klavir's Last Will and Testament. See Compl.; see also Ex. 9 to Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 89-3, at 57-61 (May 15, 2020) ("Will"); Ex. 8 to Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 89-3, at 50-55 (May 15, 2020) ("Second Amendment").
In response to the Show Cause Order, Ms. Gladstein first argues that the Goldfields "have not moved to dismiss any of [her] claims against them" and that "[t]he arguments made by the [Wolf Defendants] in support of their motion to dismiss do not apply to the claims made against the . . . Goldfields." Pl.'s Resp. at 2. Ms. Gladstein maintains that the Goldfields "are not lawyers and not one the claims alleged against them is based on a theory of legal malpractice." Id.
Ms. Gladstein further argues that the Court takes judicial notice of the Probate Decree, but "appears to overlook the findings of fact by the Probate Court on June 17, 2009 ("2009 Probate Order") and the undisputed facts as found by the Supreme Court of Connecticut." Id. at 2-3. Ms.Gladstein contends that Judge Rearden in the 2009 Probate Order "held that the Probate Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to make a determination as to the validity of the 1997 amendment to the Trust" and order that if "an action in Superior Court" was filed with "respect to the Objections and Final Accounting of the Trustee," then "the Application . . . for approval of the Final Account of Trustee of the France Klavir Living Trust" would be denied without prejudice. Id. Ms. Gladstein "commenced the action to challenge the validity of the amendment to the Trust and . . . the amendment of the Will" and "thus the Application for Approval of Final Account of Trustee of the Frances Klavir Living Trust was denied." Id. Ms. Gladstein contends that "[n]o court has ever determined that the Trust was validly amended" and that "there is more...
To continue reading
Request your trial