Hoeppner-Cruz v. Brower
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:24-cv-05170
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Hoeppner-Cruz v. Brower, Judge Hixson denied Brower’s motion to dismiss, finding diversity jurisdiction based on the trustee’s Maryland citizenship.
The ruling allows Jo Ann Hoeppner-Cruz’s case against Robert W Brower to continue in federal court by rejecting Brower’s challenge to diversity jurisdiction. The order does not decide the underlying trust-property or fiduciary-duty claims.
What happened
In Hoeppner-Cruz v. Brower, Jo Ann Hoeppner-Cruz, acting as trustee of a revocable trust, sued Robert W. Brower under California probate law over the sale of trust property.
Brower argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction because he and the trust were both connected to California. The court considered whether the trustee’s citizenship or the citizenship of the trust and its beneficiaries controlled for federal diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied the motion to dismiss. He ruled that Hoeppner-Cruz was the relevant party for citizenship purposes because she had authority to manage and dispose of trust assets, and that the court therefore had diversity jurisdiction based on her Maryland citizenship and Brower’s California citizenship.
The detailed version
- Hoeppner-Cruz v. Brower · No. 3:24-cv-05170
- Thomas Hixson
- July 16, 2025
Background
Jo Ann Hoeppner-Cruz sued Robert W Brower under California Probate Code section 17200 in her capacity as trustee of The Anthony J. Freitas and Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas 1997 Revocable Trust. The complaint alleged claims for turning over trust property, providing an accounting when the trustee changed, and breaching fiduciary duties.
The dispute concerns property at 5140 Glenn Court in Garden Valley, California. While serving as trustee, Brower proposed and completed a sale of the property to trust beneficiaries Randy Freitas and Deanna Medeiros for $370,000. The complaint alleged that Brower did not notify all beneficiaries and that the sale price was far below the property’s appraised value, causing a loss to the trust and its remaining beneficiaries.
The complaint alleged federal diversity jurisdiction. It stated that Hoeppner-Cruz was a citizen of Maryland, Brower was a citizen of California, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Brower moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. He argued that, because Hoeppner-Cruz represented a trust created by two deceased California residents, she should be treated as a California citizen under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2), eliminating diversity of citizenship.
Issue
The issue was whether the court should determine citizenship from Hoeppner-Cruz as the trustee or instead treat her as the legal representative of an estate whose citizenship would be tied to a deceased person. The order addressed jurisdiction, not whether the alleged property sale or fiduciary conduct violated California law.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a traditional trust is a fiduciary relationship rather than a separate legal entity. Legal proceedings involving such a trust are brought by or against the trustees in their own names, and the trustee’s citizenship generally controls for diversity purposes when the trustee has real and substantial control over trust assets.
The court distinguished a trustee from the legal representative of a decedent’s estate. It found that Hoeppner-Cruz was the trustee of an express trust, not the legal representative of a decedent’s estate. The trust document gave the trustee authority to hold, manage, sell, convey, exchange, invest, and otherwise deal with trust property. Based on that authority, the court found that Hoeppner-Cruz was the real party to the controversy for diversity purposes.
The court therefore treated Hoeppner-Cruz as a Maryland citizen and Brower as a California citizen. It also noted that Brower did not dispute that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
Disposition
The court denied Brower’s motion to dismiss. It also vacated the scheduled hearing and set a case-management conference for August 7, 2025, by video conference, with a joint case-management statement due July 31, 2025.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.