Opinion
23-cv-05914-LB
04-11-2024
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-in-Interpleader, v. ERICKA MOBLEY, et al., Defendants-in-Interpleader.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
RE: ECF NO. 42
LAUREL BEELER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT
This is an interpleader action involving two former spouses' competing claims to the lifeinsurance proceeds of the decedent husband Andrew Speight. Defendant-in-interpleader Nanhui Speight Jo was most recently married to Mr. Speight and is the administrator of his estate. Defendant-in-interpleader Erika Mobley was married to Mr. Speight from 2002 to 2017, during which time Mr. Speight took out a life-insurance policy and named Ms. Mobley as the beneficiary. Mr. Speight never changed that beneficiary designation.
Compl. - ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
Mobley Cross-Compl. - ECF No. 23; Speight Jo Cross-Cl. - ECF No. 38.
Ms. Mobley now moves to dismiss one of Ms. Speight Jo's cross-claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). That cross-claim asserts that Ms. Mobley wrongfully took or concealed property under Cal. Prob. Code § 859 (by not disclosing the life-insurance policy during her divorce proceedings with Mr. Speight). Ms. Mobley contends that the court “does not have jurisdiction to hear an action arising under the California Probate Code that is to be heard by a court of general jurisdiction” (the California Superior Courts).
Speight Jo Cross-Cl. - ECF No. 38 at 13 (¶¶ 54-57).
Mot. - ECF No. 42.
All parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The court held a hearing on April 11, 2024 and denies the motion because the court has diversity jurisdiction.
Consents - ECF Nos. 12, 26, 40.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778-79 (9th Cir. 2000).
A defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack can be facial or factual. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). “A ‘facial' attack asserts that a complaint's allegations are themselves insufficient to invoke jurisdiction, while a ‘factual' attack asserts that the complaint's allegations, though adequate on their face to invoke jurisdiction, are untrue.” Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750 F.3d 776, 780 n.3 (9th Cir. 2014). If the defendant mounts a factual attack, he may rely on “affidavits or any other evidence properly before the court,” in which case it “becomes necessary for the party opposing the motion to present affidavits or any other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing that the court, in fact, possesses subject matter jurisdiction.” St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). In such cases, “[t]he district court obviously does not abuse its discretion by looking to this extra-pleading material in deciding the issue, even if it becomes necessary to resolve factual disputes.” Id.
Dismissal of a complaint without leave to amend should be granted only when the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by amendment. Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
ANALYSIS
Ms. Mobley contends in effect that the court cannot have subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim that arises under the California Probate Code. But although there is a probate exception to federal jurisdiction, it does not apply here and the court has diversity jurisdiction.
For diversity jurisdiction, the opposing parties must be citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In a rule-interpleader action like this case, “there must be diversity between the stakeholder on one hand and the claimants on the other.” Lee v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 1004, 1007 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012).
“The probate exception to federal jurisdiction reserves probate matters to state probate courts and precludes federal courts from disposing of property in the custody of a state court.” Goncalves Goncalves ex rel. Goncalves v. Rady Children's Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1251 (9th Cir. 2017). The exception applies only if “a federal court is endeavoring to (1) probate or annul a will, (2) administer a decedent's estate, or (3) assume in rem jurisdiction over property that is in the custody of the probate court.” Id. at 1252.
Here, neither party disputes that the court has diversity jurisdiction. The issue then is whether the probate exception applies, because if it does not, then Ms. Mobley has not shown that the court lacks jurisdiction. Because none of the three contexts described in Goncalves exists here, the probate exception does not apply.
In her reply brief, Ms. Mobley contends that “the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction” applies. In support, she relies on Kowalski v. Boliker, 893 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2018). The domestic-relations exception is very narrow, though, and is limited to substantive family-law matters. Id. at 996 (the exception did not apply because “Kowalski complain[ed] of alleged attempts to curtail his procedural rights in family court, but he d[id] not attack any application of Illinois family law”).
In sum, the court denies the motion to dismiss.
CONCLUSION
The court denies the motion to dismiss. This resolves ECF No. 42.
IT IS SO ORDERED.