Jackson v. Josiah
| Decision Date | 14 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:19-cv-00671-JAM-KJN PS,2:19-cv-00671-JAM-KJN PS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | ROBIN E. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. MARSHA J. JOSIAH, et al., Defendants. |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Before the court are plaintiff's motion to supplement her complaint and defendants' motion to dismiss.1 (ECF Nos. 36, 37.) Both motions were taken under submission without oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 40.) The parties opposed each other's motions, and defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 41-43.) For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends granting both motions and dismissing plaintiff's complaint, as supplemented, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
This case is based entirely on the proceedings in and surrounding a state probate court case, which has now concluded after unsuccessful appeals through the state courts and even to theU.S. Supreme Court. Because plaintiff's claims in this court rest on actions taken in the probate court case, the undersigned describes those proceedings in some detail.
Plaintiff, Robin Jackson, and defendant, Marsha Josiah, are sisters and were co-trustees of their late mother's trust, the Eddie Copeland Neighbors Trust. (ECF No. 1 at 51 (Ex. B, Declaration of Trust).) Marsha Josiah's husband, Claude Josiah, is the other named defendant in this case. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff Jackson and her husband (not named as a party here) have lived at the sisters' mother's house on 65th Avenue in Sacramento, California since July 2010. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 31.) In June 2015, their mother passed away, and the sisters became co-trustees of the Trust, which included the 65th Avenue home as Trust property. (ECF No. 38 at 19-20 (Ex. B, Order After Trial).)2
In September 2017, defendant Marsha Josiah filed a petition in the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento seeking an accounting of the Trust and removal of plaintiff as co-trustee. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 9; ECF No. 38 at 4, 17; ECF No. 36.1 at 14.) The petition alleged that on August 3, 2015, two months after their mother's death, plaintiff Jackson unilaterally recorded a grant deed transferring the home from the Trust to herself and her husband—without paying Josiah for her half-share of interest in the property.3 (ECF No. 36.1 at 15-16.) The petition asserted five causes of action, including claims that Jackson "engaged in self-dealing and breached her fiduciary duties by transferring title to the home and by residing in it without paying rent to the Trust."Josiah v. Jackson, No. C089963, 2020 WL 6156418, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2020). In the petition, Josiah sought not only an accounting and sole trusteeship, but also an order (1) directing the Jacksons to transfer the property back to the Trust, (2) requiring the Jacksons to vacate the residence so that it could be sold, and (3) requiring plaintiff Jackson to pay the fair rental value for the period in which she lived in the home after her mother's death. (ECF No. 36.1 at 20-21.)
The case was assigned to Judge John P. Winn of the Superior Court's probate department ("the probate court") and tried over two days.4 The first day of trial, November 29, 2018, concerned title to the home. (ECF No. 38 at 19.) No transcripts of the trial were provided to this court, but the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, summarized the first day's proceeding as follows:
After hearing testimony from Jackson, Josiah, and an appraiser called to address the fair rental value of the home, the court found the home to be a Trust asset. The court rejected Jackson's claim that there was an agreement to allow Jackson to transfer title of the home from the Trust to Jackson and her husband. The court ordered that title be returned to the Trust, and continued the remainder of the trial to March 22, 2019.
Josiah, 2020 WL 6156418, at *2. Judge Winn's final order recounted the first day's proceeding like this:
In concluding the first day of trial, Judge Winn also "ordered that the home be appraised and retitled as a trust asset." (Id.) He set the second day of trial for March 22, 2019, and set a status conference for February 19, 2019, to confirm that the retitling and appraisal were completed. (Id.)
At the February 19th status conference, which was not reported, "it was immediately clear that [plaintiff Jackson] was unwilling to cooperate in relation to the appraisal or the correction to the deed." (Id.) Accordingly, Judge Winn ordered "that Jackson be suspended as a co-trustee, that the home immediately be retitled in the name of the Trust, and that an appraisal of the home be completed by March 12, 2019." Josiah, 2020 WL 6156418, at *2. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 100; see ECF No. 38 at 11 (ROA #133); id. at 20.) Jackson filed several declarations, a motion to vacate, and a motion for reconsideration regarding her suspension as co-trustee. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 106; see ECF No. 38 at 10-11 (ROA #134-140).)
"When Jackson refused to sign a grant deed transferring title back to the Trust, the court granted an ex parte application [by Josiah] authorizing the clerk to sign the deed as an elisor." Josiah, 2020 WL 6156418, at *2. (See ECF No. 38 at 10 (ROA# 144-146).) On March 7, 2019, pursuant to that order, the Clerk of the Superior Court executed a grant deed transferring the property back to the Trust on behalf of the Jacksons. (ECF No. 1 at 74-75 (Ex. D).)
On March 22, 2019, the trial resumed. Before taking testimony, Judge Winn ruled on Jackson's motions for reconsideration of the order suspending her as a trustee. (ECF No. 38 at 21.) He denied the motions because they were "untimely and lacked substantive merit." (Id. ().) At that second and final day of trial, Judge Winn took testimony and evidence on the value of the home and its fair rental value; and he permitted to Jackson to later file proof of the mortgage and maintenance expenses she had been covering. (Id.) Plaintiff did so in a timely "23rd Declaration." (ECF No. 36.1 at 28-29 (Ex. C).)
After issuing a tentative decision in April and hearing additional argument in June, Judge Winn issued a final Order After Trial on June 25, 2019. (ECF No. 38, Ex. B; see id. at 21.)Therein, Judge Winn ordered, as relevant, that (1) Jackson was removed as co-trustee of the Trust, (2) the home was a Trust asset, (3) Jackson owed nearly $80,000 for the fair rental value of the home from 2015 to 2019, reduced by a nearly equivalent credit for the expenses she had personally paid for its upkeep, and (4) while Jackson continued to occupy the home, rent costs (offset by credit toward rent costs) would continue to accrue going forward. (Id. at 23.) The court declined to order Jackson and her husband to vacate the residence, however, stating that such relief would have to be "pursued in a different forum." (Id.) Judge Winn explained somewhat opaquely that Probate Code § 850(a)(3)(A), the statute under which petitioner Josiah brought her petition, did "not support this contention." (Id.) Judge Winn also encouraged the parties to sell the home to a third party or to have one party buy out the other's interest in the home; but he declined to order the home to be sold because plaintiff Jackson and her husband still lived in it. (Id. at 24.)
At various points while the probate case was ongoing, plaintiff Jackson filed formal complaints with the State Commission on Judicial Performance "regarding [Judge Winn]'s conduct in the courtroom" during her trial and hearings. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 101.)
Plaintiff appealed the probate court's decision to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, which affirmed Judge Winn's judgment. Josiah v. Jackson, No. C089963, 2020 WL 6156418 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2020). In that appeal, Jackson "challenge[d] the trial court's implied finding that she breached her fiduciary duties and engaged in self-dealing by transferring title of the home from the Trust to herself (and her husband) and occupying the home for several years without paying rent to the Trust." Id. at *3. Although the Court of Appeal found Jackson's brief "difficult to follow," it understood her to be generally arguing that "the evidence does not support a finding that her conduct breached any fiduciary duties or caused any personal damages to Josiah." Id. The Court of Appeal concluded that Jackson had "forfeited her claims by filing an inadequate brief and record," and was therefore "compelled to rely on the presumption of correctness and affirm the judgment." Id. at *1, 3.
The California Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for review in December 2020 (ECF No. 38 at 37), and the United States Supreme Court later denied her request for certiorari,Jackson v. Josiah, No. 20-7165, 2021 WL 1520894, at *1 (U.S. Apr. 19, 2021).
On April 19, 2019, two months prior to the probate court's Order After Trial and three days before the probate court announced its tentative decision, plaintiff filed her federal complaint with this court. (ECF No. 1....
To continue reading
Request your trial