Gregory v. Harris

Background

The court had previously granted defendant Joel A. Harris’s motion to dismiss Jeane Gregory’s complaint, while allowing limited leave to amend claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty or aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. The court ordered Gregory to file an amended complaint by February 7, 2022.

On February 3, Gregory filed a document titled “Amendment - Motion for Summary Judgement.” She later filed a document titled “First Amended Complaint” on March 3, stating that the earlier filing had been a mistake. Gregory filed the March document without the court’s permission and after the deadline. Harris argued that neither filing complied with the court’s earlier order and moved to dismiss the amended pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

The most recent amended pleading listed five claims: fraud against Gregory’s parents, fraud against Gregory, breach of fiduciary duty to Gregory’s parents, breach of fiduciary duty to Gregory, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty to Gregory. It also requested $250,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

Court’s analysis

Because Gregory was representing herself, the court liberally construed the February 3 filing as an attempt to amend her complaint, even though it was labeled a summary-judgment motion. The court agreed that the March 3 filing did not comply with the earlier order because it was filed nearly one month late. The court considered that filing only to decide whether allowing another amendment would be futile.

The court concluded that the February pleading did not plausibly allege timely fraud or fiduciary-duty claims. For fraud, the pleading did not identify any false or misleading representation by Harris. Gregory added allegations that Harris’s engagement with her parents should be viewed suspiciously because his law office was 70 miles from where he met them about their estate and other attorneys with local offices could have performed the same services. The court found that these allegations did not address the deficiencies identified in its earlier order.

For the fiduciary-duty claim, Gregory appeared to rely on duties that a lawyer owes to a client. But she did not claim that she had ever been Harris’s client, and the nature of the alleged breach was unclear. The court also found the connection unclear between the probate-related events Gregory described, including the naming of Mr. Glaser as trustee, and any duty Harris may have owed Gregory.

The court further held that the claims were untimely based on Gregory’s own allegations. She stated that she knew the facts supporting her fraud claim by March 26, 2009, and the facts supporting her fiduciary-duty claim by March 26, 2009, or sometime in 2011. The court rejected the argument that the filing deadlines were delayed merely because Gregory later identified a legal theory that she believed fit those facts. The amended pleadings did not show any basis for extending the applicable deadlines.

Disposition

The court concluded that Gregory failed to state any claim for which relief could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). It also found that the March 3 pleading relied on the same facts as the earlier pleadings and that further amendment would be futile. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted Harris’s motion to dismiss all claims against him with prejudice.