Parikh v. Frosh
| Decision Date | 09 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 8:22-cv-00110-PX |
| Parties | OXANA N. PARIKH, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN FROSH et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Brian Frosh in his official capacity as Attorney General, Joseph Griffin in his official capacity as Register of Wills for Montgomery County, James J Debelius, and Lynn Caudle Pendleton. ECF Nos. 16 & 26. Also pending is the Motion for Sanctions filed by Debelius and Pendleton. ECF No. 32. All motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. See D. Md. Loc. R. 105.6. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss and GRANTS in part the sanctions motion.
This dispute concerns the estate of Dr. Dinesh O. Parikh, who left his loved ones an approximately $1.5 million inheritance (the “Estate”). See ECF No. 12 ¶¶ 95, 282. Dr. Parikh is survived by his spouse, Neela, and two adult children, Tina Parikh-Smith and Namish Parikh. ECF No 26-3 at 2. Plaintiff Oxana N. Parikh (“Plaintiff” or “Oxana”) is the ex-wife of Namish Parikh, and the former daughter-in-law of the decedent. See ECF No. 12 ¶¶ 1, 65. Under the terms of Dr Parikh's Last Will and Testament (the “Will”), Oxana was named the Estate's personal representative and sole legatee. Id. ¶¶ 57, 97, 103, 170, 303. The Will did not provide for Neela, Tina, or Namish. Consequently, the family feud over the disbursement of the Estate has spawned tortured litigation that necessitates detailed review.[1]
A. Early State Court Proceedings
The Will was probated on June 22, 2016. ECF No. 16-2 at 1; In the Estate of Dinesh O. Parikh, No. W87973 (“Probate action”). Soon after, on July 11, 2016, Tina petitioned to caveat the Will and remove Oxana as personal representative. ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. Nos. 22 & 23; see also ECF No. 31-6. Tina alleged that Oxana had abused her power of attorney to misappropriate $1.14 million from Dinesh and to fraudulently file on Dinesh's behalf an uncontested divorce from Neela, all during the final months of the decedent's life. ECF No. 31-6 ¶¶ 12 - 16; ECF No. 31-7 at 2. The Montgomery County Orphan's Court held an emergency evidentiary hearing on September 9, 2016, after which it removed Oxana as personal representative and appointed Pendleton-a neutral third party-as Special Administrator for the Estate. ECF No. 12 ¶ 304; ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. No. 61; ECF No. 26-8; ECF No. 31-10 at 74:19 - 75:10.[2]
On October 6, 2016, Pendleton filed a separate action on behalf of the Estate against Oxana and Namish in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to recoup the misappropriated funds. Lynn Caudle Boynton v. Oxana Parikh et al., No. 425847V (filed Oct. 6, 2016) (“Circuit Court action”); see also ECF No. 26-3 at 6, 42. Pendleton moved for pre-judgment attachment of the funds, which the Circuit Court granted. Next, Pendleton and the Parikhs mediated the matter and reached a settlement in principle, as memorialized in a settlement agreement (the “Agreement”). The Agreement required that the $1.14 million in misappropriated funds be paid to Pendleton as Special Administrator, who would next distribute the proceeds with roughly 57 percent to Namish and 43 percent to Tina and Neela. ECF No. 26-10 ¶¶ 1, 3, 11.
On November 17, 2016, Oxana and Namish agreed to return the $1.14 million into an escrow account. ECF No. 31-11 at 1. Oxana and Namish deposited the funds, but otherwise they repudiated the Agreement. They next filed counterclaims in the Circuit Court action, challenging Pendleton's actions as Special Administrator. See ECF No. 26-16. The claims averred that Pendleton abusively froze the deposited funds; negligently breached her fiduciary duty to the Estate; and that the opposing parties conspired to “invalidate the Will, seize the personal assets of Namish and Oxana, and distribute those ill-gotten gains in a manner which perverts the terms of the Will.” Id. ¶¶ 54 - 78.
In response, Pendleton, Neela, and Tina moved to dismiss the counterclaims and for summary judgment in their favor regarding Oxana's breach of fiduciary duty as power of attorney. Pendleton also moved for sanctions to be imposed against Oxana and Namish for their refusal to engage in discovery in the Circuit Court proceedings. ECF No. 26-3 at 9. After a hearing, the Circuit Court entered several orders that dismissed the counterclaims, granted summary judgment in Pendleton's favor on the fiduciary breach claim, and granted Pendleton's motion for sanctions. The Circuit Court separately ordered that the $1.14 million of the misappropriated funds be paid to the Estate.
Around the same time, in the Probate action, Tina moved to enforce the Agreement. ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. No. 112. Oxana opposed the motion, asserting an array of far-flung arguments. ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. No. 117; see generally ECF No. 26-17. Following a hearing April 24 and 25, 2017, the Orphan's Court granted Tina's motion and declared the Agreement valid and enforceable. ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. Nos. 139 - 41, 161; see also ECF Nos. 26-9, 31-12, 31-13, 3114, & 31-15.
Oxana reacted poorly to these adverse decisions. On August 17, 2017, she filed an emergency motion to transfer the Probate action to Baltimore City, arguing that because Pendleton and her counsel, James Debelius, enjoyed close, personal relationships with several Montgomery County Circuit Judges, she could not receive a fair trial in that court. ECF No. 162 Dkt. No. 167; ECF No. 26-4 at 22 - 23. Oxana also renewed her efforts to remove Pendleton as Special Administrator. ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. No. 180. The Circuit Court denied the motions. ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. No. 198.
For several years after, Oxana engaged in what can only be described as vexatious and obstructive litigation tactics aimed at thwarting Pendleton's efforts to carry out her duties as Special Administrator. For example, when Pendleton, through Debelius, filed a routine notice of expenses report for the Estate, ECF No. 26-12 at 3, Oxana opposed the notice, lodging baseless accusations that she had been “wrongfully removed, under suspicious circumstances” as the “sole legatee” by “a disinherited daughter with no standing to seek removal of the Personal Representative.” ECF No. 26-13 ¶¶ 1, 2. In the same opposition, Oxana described Pendleton as “a putative special administrator, with a purported name of Lynn C. Boynton,” and further objected to Debelius' role in the Estate's administration. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6, 8 (“[T]he putative special administrator had no authority to hire and/or to retain an attorney to represent her.”); see also ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. Nos. 196, 219, 229, & 262 (opposing similar notices). The Orphan's Court has soundly overruled each of Oxana's objections. See, e.g., ECF No. 26-11; see also ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. Nos. 208, 215, & 222.
Oxana also persisted in moving to oust Pendleton as Special Administrator and transfer both the Probate and Circuit Court actions to Baltimore City. ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. Nos. 239, 240, & 245; see generally ECF No. 26-18. Particular to the Circuit Court action, Oxana submitted a robust pleading of her grievances against Pendleton and Debelius. ECF No. 26-18 at 7. She called them “imposters”; accused Debelius of “fraud” and “misrepresentation” in his representation of Pendleton; and asserted that Pendleton “does not exist.” Id. at 7 - 8, 15, 21. She also suggested that Debelius' advocacy had been motivated by his racial animus toward “dark-skinned immigrants.” Id. at 10. Again, the Circuit Court rejected every assertion.
Next, in the Probate action, Oxana resurrected arguments, which the Orphan's Court had long since rejected, to set aside the Agreement. ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. No. 328; ECF No. 26-19. She accused Debelius of fraud and other related claims, and vilified him and Pendleton as “liars and cheaters.” ECF No. 26-19 at 3 n.3. As to Debelius specifically, Oxana argued that he Id. at 21. Oxana continued, “The truth is ‘Lynn Caudle Boynton' is an unlawful pseudonym used by ‘Lynn Caudle Pendleton'” and “since Fake-boynton is Fake, Then Unethical-debelius is Unethical.” Id. at 29, 30. Oxana also moved, again, to challenge the Orphan's Court 2016 order that removed her as personal representative. ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. No. 331; ECF No. 26-20. On October 21, 2020, the Orphan's Court denied both petitions, along with 13 other related petitions and motions filed by the Plaintiff. ECF No. 16-2 Dkt. No. 340 - 54.
B. Appealing Adverse Rulings
On appeal, Oxana employed the same head-spinning litigation strategy by separately challenging nearly every adverse decision. On January 16, 2019, the Appellate Court of Maryland issued the first of five decisions rejecting Oxana's serial challenges. See generally ECF No. 26-3 (Parikh I). Parikh I consolidated the appeals of three different orders from the Probate action, namely the September 2016 Order dismissing Oxana as Personal Representative and appointing Pendleton as Special Administrator; the May 2017 Order enforcing the Agreement; and the August 2017 Order declaring the Agreement valid and enforceable. ECF No. 26-3 at 12. Parikh I also reviewed the various May 2017 orders from the Circuit Court action related to Oxana and Namish's counterclaims. Id. In total, this consolidated appeal involved 21 questions, over 300 pages of briefing, and roughly 1600 pages of exhibits. Id.
Ultimately in a 60-page opinion, the Appellate Court rejected each of Oxana's arguments. See generally ECF No. 26-3. Much of the Court's analyses turned on its conclusion that the Orphan's Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial