Sandel v. Aztec Well Servicing, Inc.

Background

Jeffrey Wayne Sandel, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under New Mexico law for breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty against Jerry Wayne Sandel, whom he identified as trustee of the Jerry W. and Nancy M. Sandel Trusts and Business Trusts of Aztec Well Servicing, Inc.

The court had allowed Sandel to proceed without paying the filing fee and screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court previously found problems with the original, amended, and second amended complaints, including failure to state a claim and failure to allege a basis for personal jurisdiction over Jerry Sandel. The court then gave Sandel another opportunity to amend and ordered him to explain how his allegations supported personal jurisdiction.

Allegations and Jurisdiction

In the third amended complaint and accompanying brief, Sandel alleged that Jerry Sandel owned property in California and had minimum contacts with California through contacts with attorneys. Sandel alleged that Jerry Sandel had repeatedly failed to provide reports and information concerning the Sandel family trusts and had breached fiduciary duties as sole trustee.

Sandel invoked diversity jurisdiction, asserting that he was a California resident, Jerry Sandel was a New Mexico resident, and more than $75,000 was at stake. The court explained that personal jurisdiction requires sufficient contacts between the defendant, California, and the dispute.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the third amended complaint failed to state a claim. Unlike an earlier complaint, it did not identify any particular New Mexico statute as the basis for the claims and instead made cursory, vague allegations about breaches of trust, failure to report and inform, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court concluded that these allegations were insufficient to state a legal claim. Because Sandel had already received multiple opportunities to amend, the court found that further amendment would be futile.

The court also held that Sandel had not established either general or specific personal jurisdiction over Jerry Sandel. Sandel did not allege that Jerry Sandel resided in California or had continuous and systematic contacts there. His allegations concerning California property did not establish a relationship between Jerry Sandel and SWH Land Development LLC, the entity alleged to have owned the property. The court also found that hiring California attorneys to investigate this case or represent Jerry Sandel in other cases did not show purposeful activity connected to Sandel’s claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed Sandel’s Third Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The clerk was directed to enter judgment by separate order. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order.