Roberts v. Roberts
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-01196
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Roberts v. Roberts, Judge Caproni ordered both parties to brief whether the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over the trust dispute.
Elizabeth W. Roberts and Michael T. Roberts, who were required to submit supplemental briefing about the federal court’s jurisdiction over the trust-related action.
What happened
Roberts v. Roberts concerns Elizabeth W. Roberts’s lawsuit against Michael T. Roberts over his administration of trusts and their investments. She seeks, among other things, an accounting.
Michael T. Roberts moved to dismiss, arguing in part that the federal court should not exercise jurisdiction because related proceedings were pending in New Jersey. The court identified a possible issue about whether this action involves trust property and therefore falls within rules giving exclusive authority to the court that first obtained control of that property.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered both parties to submit supplemental briefs by May 24, 2023, addressing whether the case is an in-rem, quasi-in-rem, or similar trust-administration action. The order did not decide that jurisdictional question or the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Roberts v. Roberts · No. 1:23-cv-01196
- Valerie Caproni
- May 11, 2023
Background
Elizabeth W. Roberts sued Michael T. Roberts individually and in his capacities as trustee of two trusts: the Elizabeth W. Roberts Portfolio Grantor Trust and the Elizabeth W. Roberts Corporate Grantor Trust. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty related to Michael T. Roberts’s administration of the trusts and management of their investments. The requested relief includes an accounting of that administration and management.
Motion and jurisdictional issue
Michael T. Roberts moved to dismiss the case. Among other arguments, he asserted that the federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the rule from Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States because parallel proceedings were pending in New Jersey.
The court raised a separate jurisdictional issue for briefing. It explained that when parallel lawsuits are in rem or quasi in rem—meaning they concern control or authority over particular property—the court that first obtains custody of the property may have exclusive jurisdiction. The court also noted that this principle can apply to cases sufficiently similar to such proceedings, including actions to marshal assets or administer trusts. A federal court acquires jurisdiction over the relevant property when the action begins.
Order
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered both parties to file supplemental briefs, each no longer than three single-spaced pages, by May 24, 2023. The briefs must address whether the court has exclusive jurisdiction over this action because it is in rem, quasi in rem, or sufficiently similar to such an action under the rule associated with Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson. The order did not resolve that issue, the motion to dismiss, or the underlying fiduciary-duty dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.