Ramus v. Bruwer
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-01770
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ramus v. Bruwer, Judge Cronan granted amendment but required Joshua Ramus to proceed representatively on his trust-assets claim.
Joshua Ramus, defendants Graham R. Bruwer and Gerard E. Metoyer, and the potential beneficiaries of the Article 3-A trust are affected by the required procedure for pursuing the trust-assets claim.
What happened
In Ramus v. Bruwer, Joshua Ramus brought a claim under New York’s law governing diverted trust assets. The court had previously ruled on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and then considered how this claim must proceed.
The court said Ramus must either join all potential beneficiaries of the trust or bring the claim as a class action and seek certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court also required any amended complaint to plausibly allege each party’s citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. Ramus may replead his fraud claim if he can address the problems previously identified.
Judge Cronan granted Ramus’s request to file an amended complaint and set a June 20, 2025 deadline. If Ramus does not satisfy the representative-action requirement, the court said it will dismiss the trust-assets claim without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Ramus v. Bruwer · No. 1:23-cv-01770
- John Cronan
- May 20, 2025
Background
Joshua Ramus’s Third Cause of Action alleges diversion of trust assets under Article 3-A of the New York Lien Law. After the court’s March 17, 2025 Opinion and Order on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court held a conference and invited briefing on whether the trust-assets claim had to proceed on behalf of all trust beneficiaries.
Representative-action requirement
The court held that an Article 3-A trust-assets claim must be brought as a representative action for the benefit of all trust beneficiaries. Because Ramus filed in federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the way that representative action must proceed. The court required Ramus to choose one of two methods: join all potential beneficiaries to the case, or plead class claims and seek class certification under Rule 23.
The court rejected the possibility of allowing Ramus to proceed with only beneficiaries who affirmatively opted into the litigation. It also stated that failure to join all potential beneficiaries or seek Rule 23 class certification will result in dismissal of the Third Cause of Action without prejudice.
Amended complaint and disposition
The court granted Ramus’s request to file an amended complaint. If he continues to assert the Article 3-A claim, the amended complaint must state that he is proceeding representatively for all trust beneficiaries and must use one of the two procedures required by the court. The amended complaint must also plausibly allege diversity jurisdiction, including each party’s citizenship; for an individual, citizenship means domicile rather than residence. Ramus may replead his fraud claim if he believes in good faith that he can correct the deficiencies identified in the March 17 opinion, and he may add other causes of action arising from the parties’ dispute if appropriate.
The amended complaint is due June 20, 2025. The order did not itself dismiss the Third Cause of Action; it explained that dismissal without prejudice will result if the required representative procedure is not followed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.