Mathis v. Cnty. of Lyon
| Decision Date | 11 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:07-cv-00628-APG-GWF |
| Parties | RICHARD MATHIS, Individually, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Joe Robinson Mathis (a/k/a Joe R. Mathis), and as Trustee of the Joe Robinson Mathis and Eleanor Margherite Mathis Trust; JAMES MATHIS; and ANTHONY MATHIS, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF LYON and RICHARD GLOVER, in his individual capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
The Court has recited the factual background of this case on multiple occasions. (Dkt. Nos. 61, 186.) The following is a brief recitation of the relevant, uncontested facts as best the Court can determine from the pleadings and the moving papers. Additional facts are discussed as necessary in the analysis below.
On May 29, 2006, Deputy Sheriff Abel Ortiz ("Ortiz") discovered Joseph R. Mathis ("Joseph") deceased in his home in Wellington, Nevada. Ortiz pronounced Joseph dead on the scene and called a funeral home to remove the body. After the body was removed, Ortiz locked and sealed the home.
Joseph had three sons: Richard Mathis ("Richard"), James Mathis ("James"), and Anthony Mathis ("Anthony") (collectively, the "Mathis Brothers," "Brothers," or "Plaintiffs"). Richard is the trustee of the Joe Robinson Mathis and Eleanor Margherite Mathis Trust (the "Mathis Trust") and the special administrator of Joseph's estate. At the time of Joseph's death, David McNinch was the successor trustee to the Mathis Trust. Richard was appointed interim trustee on July 17, 2006.
Later in the day on May 29, 2006, Ortiz unsuccessfully attempted to contact Richard Mathis, who lived in Las Vegas. He then was able to contact James in Washington state and Anthony in Quebec, Canada. The precise details are inconsistent, but either James or Anthony informed Ortiz that they would arrive in Wellington within several days.
On May 30, 2006, Ortiz contacted Richard Glover, the elected Public Administrator of Lyon County and informed him of Joseph's death. Without notifying the Mathis Brothers, Glover entered Joseph's home to locate and weapons and valuables. He removed some of the personal property from the House and took it to his storage locker.
Upon their arrival in Wellington, the Mathis Brothers obtained counsel and were able to recover some of the personal property that Glover had seized. The Mathis Brothers filed a missing property report with the Sheriff's Department and requested an investigation into Glover's conduct. Ultimately, criminal charges were not filed against Glover. Glover gave the Mathis Brothers an inventory list of everything he had seized, but the list proved inaccurate when Glover later returned an unlisted archery bow that he found in his storage unit. Plaintiffs contend that Glover still retains some of their personal property and that he tried to sell some of it at a public auction.
On May 14, 2007, the Mathis Brothers filed the Complaint in this Court asserting various state and federal claims for relief. Glover faces federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For Glover's alleged constitutional violations, Lyon County faces § 1983 claims under the doctrine of municipal liability established by Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). The state law claims include conversion, trespass to land, and breach of fiduciary duty against Glover, and negligent supervision against the County.
On September 9, 2008, the Court dismissed the Equal Protection claims. (Dkt. No. 61.) The Court held that Glover is entitled to qualified immunity for the Fourth Amendment claims, but not for the Fourteenth Amendment due process claims. The Ninth Circuit upheld the denial of qualified immunity, and did not address the grant of qualified immunity. Mathis v. Cnty. ofLyon, 633 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 21011). The Court also held that Glover was not a final-policymaker in his role as Public Administrator, thereby precluding one method of establishing municipal liability under Monell.
On October 12, 2012, the County moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 159.) On October 15, Glover moved for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 160), and Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to the procedural due process claims and the state law negligent supervision claim. (Dkt. No. 161).
On July 12, 2013, the Court reconsidered its earlier dismissal order (Dkt. No. 61), and held that Glover was a final policy-maker for the County in the area of securing property of a deceased. (Dkt. No. 186.)
Subsequently, the County submitted a renewed motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 189), which rendered moot their prior summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 159), and Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary against Lyon County as to the search and seizure claims (Dkt. No. 190). This Order resolves the outstanding motions for summary judgment: docket nos. 160, 161, 189, and 190.
A trust is properly viewed as an entity with enforceable civil rights. See Marin v. Leslie, 337 F. App'x 217, 219-20 (3d Cir. 2009); RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TRUSTS § 2 cmt. a (2003). A trust, however, like a corporation, is not a natural person capable of taking action on its own behalf. The trustee is the person so empowered, and may sue on behalf of the trust to accomplish the purposes of the trust or otherwise protect the property held in trust. NRS §§ 163.023, 163.4147. "As a general proposition, the creation of a trust divides title to the trust property, placing legal title in the trustee and equitable title in the beneficiary." 76 AM.JUR. 2d Trusts § 258 (2010), cited in Goodrich v. Briones (In re Schwarzkopf), 626 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). In federal court, a trustee of an express trust may sue in her own name without joining the trust on whose behalf the action is brought. FED. R. CIV. P. 17(a)(1)(E).
Richard Mathis was not appointed as interim trustee until July 17, 2006—about six weeks after his father's death. (Dkt. No. 198-1 at 2.) The trustee at the time of Joseph's death was McNinch. (Dkt. No. 194-5 at 10-11.) Nonetheless, Richard has capacity to enforce the purposes of the Mathis Trust—care and protection of the Trust Property1 for the ultimate benefit of the beneficiaries. The County has not presented any authority to support its position that a trust's claim for relief may be brought only by the trustee in place at the time of the injury. If that were so, an apathetic trustee could unfairly deprive the beneficiaries of relief for harm to trust property. There may be some temporal cut-off for claims related to past injuries, but this case does not so concern the Court.
In addition, the three Mathis Brothers, as beneficiaries, have equitable interests that this Court can enforce. See In re Schwarzkopf, 626 F.3d at 1039. By operation of Joseph's will (Dkt. No. 194-4) and the trust instrument (Dkt. No. 194-5), they have vested equitable interests in the Trust Property and are "regarded as the real owner[s] of [the] property." See id. (applying California law); Expert Masonry, Inc. v. Boone County, Ky., 440 F.3d 336, 338-39 (6th Cir. 2006) (); Hardesty v. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 935 F. Supp. 2d 968 (2013). Under the Trust Instrument, there appears to be no contingency capable of divesting the Mathis Brothers of their 1/6 mandatory interest in the Trust Property. (See Dkt. No. 194-5.) In other words, the trustee had and has no discretion to not distribute the 1/6 shares in the Trust Property to the Brothers. NRS § 163.4185(1)(a).
To the extent the Trust Property was still held in trust at the time of the alleged violations or possessed by the Public Administrator (and thus incapable of distribution), the Mathis Brothers have enforceable rights as beneficiaries with vested equitable interests in the Trust Property. To the extent the Trust Property had already been distributed at the time of the alleged violations, the Mathis Brothers have enforceable rights as partial title owners of the Trust Property. Under eitherformulation, the Mathis Brothers have standing to sue. Finally, the Mathis Brothers have enforceable rights in relation to their personal property that was stored at the Mathis House.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. "Summary judgment is inappropriate if reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor." Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1999)). A principal purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial