Jenkins v. Obion Cnty.
| Decision Date | 14 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-cv-01056-STA-atc,20-cv-01056-STA-atc |
| Parties | JENNIFER LOUISE JENKINS, Administrator Ad Litem of the ESTATE OF STERLING L. HIGGINS, Plaintiff, v. OBION COUNTY, TENNESSEE; UNION CITY, TENNESSEE; ROBERT THOMAS ORSBORNE, Individually; MARY BROGLIN, Individually; WAYLON SPAULDING, Individually; and, BRENDON SANFORD, Individually, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Plaintiff Jennifer Louise Jenkins filed this action as the administrator ad litem of the Estate of Sterling L. Higgins ("the Decedent"), alleging that Defendants Obion County, Tennessee, Union City, Tennessee, and their employees Robert Thomas Orsborne, Mary Broglin, Waylon Spaulding, and Brendon Sanford, in their individual capacities, violated the civil rights of the Decedent during his arrest, pretrial detention, and subsequent death on March 24, 2019. Plaintiff has asserted, inter alia, "all claims on [the Estate's] behalf and all claims actionable by it on behalf of Mr. Higgins's two minor daughters ...." (Amd. Cmplt. at ¶ 6, ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff brings her claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Tennessee state law.1
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and standing. (ECF No. 61.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff, as administrator ad litem, lacks standing under Tennessee law to prosecute the claims brought in this action and that the Decedent's Estate does not have a cause of action against Defendants. They also contend that the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to Tennessee's circuit courts set out in the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act ("TGTLA"), Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-307, deprives this Court of jurisdiction over the state law claims or, in the alternative, the exclusivity provision of the TGTLA provides a compelling reason for this Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. Plaintiff has filed a response to the motion (ECF No. 64), and Defendants have filed a reply to the response. (ECF No. 65.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is DENIED.
Although Defendants have styled their motion as a "motion to dismiss," they reference Rule 12(c) which provides for motions for judgment on the pleadings. It is well-settled that a Court uses the same standard in deciding a Rule 12(c) motion that applies to a review of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing, LLC, 477 F.3d 383, 389 (6th Cir. 2007). Under either Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), the Court must "construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all of the complaint's factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle relief." Id. (citations omitted). The factual allegations in the complaint must be sufficient to give notice to the defendant as to what claims are alleged, and the plaintiff must plead "sufficient factual matter" to render the legal claim plausible, that is, more than merely possible. Fritz v. Charter Twp. of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)).
The following facts are relevant in deciding this motion.2 On March 24, 2019, the Decedent suffered a mental health episode and was taken to the Obion County Jail. After an altercation with law enforcement officers, the Decedent became unresponsive and ultimately died. Jennifer Louise Jenkins is the mother of the Decedent's two children and has been appointed administrator ad litem of his estate. Nicole Higgins was married to the Decedent at the time of his death, although there is evidence that they were estranged.3
Defendants' motion brings three issues before the Court: (1) whether Plaintiff Jennifer Louise Jenkins has standing to bring this lawsuit, (2) whether the Decedent's Estate has a claim against Defendants, and (3) whether the Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Court finds that Plaintiff does have standing to bring the lawsuit, any recovery will belong to the statutory heirs, and the Court will accept jurisdiction over the state law claims.
Plaintiff has filed this action as the administrator ad litem of the Estate of the Decedent on behalf of their two minor children. Defendants correctly set out the relevant law that a civil-rights claim is "a personal action cognizable only by . . . the person whose civil rights have been violated," although the claim "may be pursued in the name of a personal representative." Davis v.Memphis Police Department, 2013 WL 4446240 at *5 (W.D. Tenn. 2013). Defendants argue that, because the Decedent had a surviving spouse, the right to file a lawsuit belongs to Nicole Higgins, and Jennifer Louise Jenkins lacks standing to bring the lawsuit.
Under Tennessee law, a cause of action that survives death passes to the "surviving spouse and, in case there is no surviving spouse, to the person's children or next of kin" or to "the person's personal representative, for the benefit of the person's surviving spouse or next of kin." Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-106(a)). Section § 20-5-107(a) also provides that "[t]he action may be instituted by the personal representative of the deceased or by the surviving spouse in the surviving spouse's own name, or, if there is no surviving spouse, by the children of the deceased or by the next of kin." See also Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-110(a) (); Foster v. Jeffers, 813 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) ().
Plaintiff correctly points out that Defendants' argument is not a question of standing but of superior rights or priorities among beneficiaries. As the surviving spouse of the Decedent, Nicole Higgins had the "prior and superior right above all others" to file this action asserting both the § 1983 claim and the state-law wrongful death claim. Beard v. Branson, 528 S.W.3d 487, 499 (Tenn. 2017) (quoting Foster, 813 S.W.2d at 451). But she did not do so, and the fact that Nicole Higgins had priority in filing this lawsuit does not mean that she was the only one with that right. Clearly,Jennifer Louise Jenkins, as administrator ad litem (personal representative) had standing to file the lawsuit pursuant to Tennessee's statute cited above.4
Defendants contend that there is no evidence that Nicole Higgins waived her right to file the lawsuit. To the contrary, Plaintiff has presented such evidence. First, Nicole Higgins took no action to file a lawsuit, and the applicable statute of limitations has now run.5 If Plaintiff had not filed this action, any right to recovery would have been barred. Additionally, Higgins could have filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit but has not done so.
Plaintiff's attorney, David Cooper, has filed his own declaration (ECF No. 64-1) stating the attempts he made to contact Nicole Higgins. Higgins was notified of the proceedings to appoint Jenkins as administrator ad litem of the Estate of the Decedent but did not appear at the hearing, nor did she file any objections to the appointment. Attorney Cooper states that he discussed the lawsuit with Higgins on at least two occasions. .) According to Attorney Cooper, Higgins did not object to the filing of the lawsuit or indicate a desire to have herself substituted as the plaintiff. (Id.)
Defendants appear to suggest that the Court should discount the statements made by Attorney Cooper in his declaration. (Reply pp. 3-4, ECF No. 66 Attorney Cooper is an officer of the Court, and the Court accepts the statements in his declaration as beingtruthful and made in good faith. If there is some evidence to the contrary that Defendants are privy to of which the Court is unaware, Defendants should present that evidence. If not, they should refrain from disparaging Attorney Cooper's statements.
Accordingly, the Court finds that, while Nicole Higgins may have had priority in filing a lawsuit, she did not do so, and the record shows that she has waived that right. See Epperson v. City of Humboldt, 140 F.Supp.3d 676, 682 (W.D. Tenn. 2015) . Thus, Defendants' argument that Jennifer Louise Jenkins as administrator ad litem lacks standing to file this action is not persuasive.
Next, Defendants argue that Jenkins cannot recover on behalf of the Estate and, instead, any recovery would benefit the statutory heirs, including Higgins. See id. () Plaintiff agrees that this action is being prosecuted for the benefit of the eligible statutory beneficiaries and that no part of the recovery will pass through the Estate. (Resp. at p. 8 n. 1, ECF No. 64, Beard, 528 S.W.3d at 498 ()).6
Plaintiff has brought claims against Defendants Orsborne, Spaulding, Brogglin, and Sanford under the Tennessee Wrongful Death and Survival laws, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 20-5-106,107, for allegedly intentionally,...
To continue reading
Request your trial