Tigrett v. De Vos
| Decision Date | 26 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-1268-STA-jay |
| Parties | ISAAC BURTON TIGRETT, II and AUGUSTA KING TIGRETT, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants v. LLOYD DE VOS, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Before the Court is Plaintiffs, Isaac Burton Tigrett, II's and Augusta King Tigrett's, Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9.) Defendant Lloyd De Vos has responded in opposition. The briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion is now complete, and the Motion is ripe for determination. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED.
The underlying facts and procedural history of this case are largely undisputed. This case involves the administration of two trusts. Plaintiff Isaac Burton Tigrett, II is the primary beneficiary of the Isaac Burton Tigrett, II Trust, which was created under the Last Will and Testament of Frances T. Tigrett, Plaintiff's mother. Plaintiff, Augusta King Tigrett is the primary beneficiary of the Irrevocable Trust Agreement for the Benefit of Augusta King Tigrett, which was created for her benefit by Frances T. Tigrett, her grandmother. Lloyd De Vos is trustee to both trusts. This dispute arose out of Plaintiffs' concern that Defendant is failing to fulfill his duties pursuant to the trust documents and Tennessee law to provide the beneficiaries with timely accountings and asset statements and to respond to their requests for information regarding the situs of the trusts. As set out in Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, Plaintiffs originally filed this action in the Chancery Court of Tennessee for the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District at Madison County on November 3, 2020. Plaintiffs' Petition to Compel and to Declare Situs of Trusts requests that the Chancery Court compel Trustee, Lloyd De Vos, to provide accountings and financial information pertaining to the trusts pursuant to trust documents and Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-15-813. (ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiffs also seek an order enjoining Defendant from moving the trust out of state, or, if Defendant has already moved the trusts, Plaintiffs seek an order declaring that such a move is invalid under Tennessee law. (Id.) In their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs request that the Chancery Court enter an order awarding Plaintiffs all of their fees, expenses, and costs related to this matter pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-15-1004(a) and that the Court enter an order requiring Defendant to seek court review and approval of any legal fees, costs, and other expenses that he incurs relating to this lawsuit prior to payment or reimbursement with trust funds pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 35-15-709, 1004. (Id.)
On December 9, 2020, Defendant removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). (ECF No. 1.) In his Notice of Removal, Defendant states, with the concurrence of Plaintiffs, that this action is between citizens of different states. Plaintiff Isaac Burton Tigrett, II, is a citizen of Mississippi; Plaintiff Augusta King Tigrett is a citizen of California; and Defendant, Lloyd De Vos, is a citizen of New Jersey. Defendant contends that the the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied, stating that the value of the Trusts each exceed $75,000. Furthermore, Defendant cites Plaintiffs' sought-for award of fees, expenses, and costs, in addition to Defendant's trustee fees, as contributing to exceeding the $75,000 threshold. Here, parties diverge.
Plaintiffs have responded with the instant Motion to Remand. They argue that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this case because the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met. Plaintiffs' complaint sets out the amount in controversy at the time of removal, which they claim is dispositive. They argue that the only monetary damages sought in the complaint are reimbursement of their fees, costs, and expenses relating to their action and that, at the time of removal, Plaintiffs' those amounted to $37,129.05. According to Plaintiffs, their request for accounting also does not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement because the cost of an accounting is conjectural at the point of remand and, even if the cost of accounting posited by Defendant is accepted, the overall amount in controversy still does not amount to $75,000. Further, the underlying value of the trusts cannot satisfy the jurisdictional threshold because neither the corpus of the trusts nor the beneficial ownership of the trusts is in controversy. Likewise, beneficiaries' request to declare the situs of the trusts does not affect the ownership of the trusts and so cannot place the entire value of the trusts in controversy. Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the Princess Lida doctrine and the Doctrines of Abstention and Probate Exception mandate remand.
Defendant has responded in a Response and Sur-Reply. Defendant contends that the amount-in-controversy does exceed $75,000, considering the probable value of the various forms of relief requested in the Complaint. First, Defendant argues that the value of the equitable accounting in question, at the time of removal, is $22,600. Defendant declares that he has himself spent "not less than twenty hours" in connection with the accounting, with a time value of $15,000 and that the overall value of the full process is "not less than $37,000. Next, Defendant argues that the "statutorily authorized attorney's fees to be incurred will, more likely than not, exceed $75,000. Given that, from the time their Complaint was removed to federal court, Plaintiff has accrued $37,129.05 in legal fees, and that Plaintiffs' attorneys have since filed a number ofpleadings, Plaintiffs will likely exceed the jurisdictional threshold throughout the course of the litigation. Defendant requests that, should the Court find that Defendant has not met his burden of proving that Plaintiffs' legal fees and expenses are more likely than not to exceed $75,000, the Court should order Plaintiffs' counsel to submit a third declaration showing all past and estimated future expenses related to this matter. Defendant further states that Plaintiffs seeking an injunction "to prohibit Defendant from charging accounting, Trustee, and his attorney fees to the Trust without Court approval," place those fees in dispute and they should therefore be considered in calculating the amount-in-controversy. Altogether, the value of attorney's fees, accounting, and Defendant's own trustee fees and expenses, Defendant argues, are more likely than not to add up to, at least, $75,000. The Court addresses these arguments in turn.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). Further, "removal statutes are to be strictly construed, and 'all doubts should be resolved against removal.'" Mays v. City of Flint, 871 F.3d 437, 442 (6th Cir. 2017) (). "This is because removal jurisdiction encroaches on state jurisdiction, and the interests of comity and federalism require that federal jurisdiction be exercised only when it is clearly established." Holston v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., No. 90-1358, 1991 WL 112809, at *3 (6th Cir. June 26, 1991).
"When a plaintiff files a case in state court that could have been brought in a federal district court, a defendant may invoke the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, to secure a federal forum." Jarrett-Cooper v. United Airlines, Inc., 586 F. App'x 214, 215 (6th Cir. 2014) ). "Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant." Paul v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Ohio, 701 F.3d 514, 518 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal diversity jurisdiction exists over "civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000" and the parties are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Fritz Dairy Farm, LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, 567 F. App'x 396, 398 (6th Cir. 2014). A defendant wishing to remove a case bears the burden of satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement. Gafford v. Gen. Elec. Co., 997 F.2d 150, 155 (6th Cir.1993). When the amount pled in the complaint does not explicitly meet the amount in controversy requirement, the defendant has the burden of proving that 'more likely than not,' by a preponderance of the evidence, this jurisdictional requirement has been met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B); Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 871 (6th Cir. 2001). To carry this burden, a defendant "must set forth, in the notice of removal, specific facts supporting the assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the amount required by statute." Shupe v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 566 F. App'x 476, 478 (6th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). "While [defendant] need not show 'to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy met the federal requirement,' it must do more 'than show [ ] a mere possibility that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied.' " Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818, 829 (6th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1029 (2010). In gauging the amount in controversy, courts view the claims from the vantage point of the time of removal. Ahearn v. Charter Twp. of Bloomfield, 100 F.3d 451, 456 (6th Cir. 1996).
"The traditional judicial interpretation ... has been ... that the separate anddistinct claims of two or more plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial