Gregory v. Harris

Background

Jeane Gregory filed the action representing herself. She sued Joel A. Harris, an attorney who allegedly prepared her parents’ will and trust. Gregory alleged that Harris helped mislead her parents, failed to submit her mother’s will for probate, and assisted the former trustee, John C. Glaser, in depriving her of her position as successor trustee. Gregory had dismissed her claims against the other defendants, leaving Harris as the remaining defendant.

The complaint did not identify specific legal claims, but the court understood it to assert possible claims for fraud, violation of California Probate Code section 8200 based on failure to submit the will for probate, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. Harris moved to dismiss based on defective service, failure to state a claim, and statutes of limitations.

Service of Process

The court denied Harris’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4), which concerns defects in the form or contents of a summons. Although the summons referred to “Joel A. Harris Law Offices,” the court found that it was clearly directed to Harris personally rather than to his law practice.

The court also denied Harris’s motion under Rule 12(b)(5), which concerns the method of service. Harris acknowledged receiving the summons and complaint but argued that Gregory improperly mailed them to his business address without first attempting personal delivery. The court noted that California law permits service by mail and that Harris cited no authority requiring an earlier attempt at personal service.

Failure to State a Claim

The court dismissed Gregory’s possible fraud claim under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). Rule 9(b) requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity, including the time, place, and specific content of the alleged false statements. Gregory did not identify the statements Harris allegedly made, facts showing that Harris knew they were false or intended to cause reliance, or facts showing reliance and resulting harm. The court dismissed this claim without prejudice and allowed an opportunity to amend because it was not clear that the pleading defects could not be cured.

The court denied Harris’s motion as to Gregory’s claim that he failed to submit her mother’s will for probate. California Probate Code section 8200 requires a will’s custodian to deliver the will to the appropriate superior court clerk and to the person named as executor or, in some circumstances, a beneficiary. The court rejected Harris’s argument that the claim failed because the estate assets were held in a trust. It stated that Harris had not shown that a will transferring property to a trust was exempt from section 8200 or that the circumstances allowing distribution without probate were present.

The court nevertheless dismissed this will-probate claim with prejudice based on the statute of limitations. Gregory alleged that she discovered the alleged concealment of the will in 2011, but she did not file this action until 2021. The court concluded that the claim had to be brought within one year of that discovery and therefore was too late. The court found that amendment would be futile as to this claim.

As to the allegation that Harris assisted Glaser in breaching fiduciary duties, the court treated Gregory’s allegations as a possible claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. It found the allegations insufficient to state such a claim because Gregory did not clearly identify her legal theory or plead the required elements, including a fiduciary breach, Harris’s actual knowledge, substantial assistance or encouragement, and harm caused by Harris’s conduct. The court dismissed this claim without prejudice and allowed Gregory to amend it.

Statute of Limitations

The court found that the face of the complaint suggested that all three possible claims might be time-barred. However, it concluded that the timing of the alleged fraud and fiduciary-duty misconduct was not sufficiently clear to resolve those issues at the dismissal stage. The court did determine that the will-probate claim was untimely based on Gregory’s allegation that she discovered the alleged wrongdoing in 2011.

Disposition

The court granted Harris’s motion to dismiss with limited leave to amend. It dismissed with prejudice Gregory’s claim concerning failure to submit the will for probate and dismissed her remaining claims without prejudice. Gregory could file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies by February 7, 2022.

The court denied Gregory’s motions for summary judgment and her motion to amend or correct her motion for summary judgment. It denied the parties’ outstanding motions to stay and to strike as moot. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi issued the order.