United States District Court, D. Alaska
DAVID H. MARX, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES C. MARX, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
SHARON
L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On
March 15, 2018, self-represented litigant David H. Marx filed
a motion seeking to reopen this case, after voluntarily
dismissing it in February of 2017.[1] David Marx seeks an order
annulling the Testament of Lawrence Eugene Marx (Deceased)
and an order “restor[ing] all assets, money, and real
property to Plaintiff, and order[ing] immediate criminal
sanctions against James C. Marx and all parties associated
with the theft of real property from the Trust and Residuary
Estate and unauthorized removals of property from
Plaintiff's house in Tenakee Springs,
Alaska.”[2] Attached to his motion are documents from
the Superior Court for the State of Alaska in Ketchikan, a
trust registration, case no. 1KE-91-3TR, for the Lawrence and
Nancy Marx trust, and documents from a state Superior Court
informal probate proceeding for the Estate of Lawrence Eugene
Mark, pending in Juneau, case no. 1JU-17-78PR.[3] David Marx is
Lawrence Marx's only surviving child. David Marx is
purportedly the sole beneficiary of the trust at issue. James
C. Marx, Lawrence Marx's brother, is purportedly the sole
beneficiary of Lawrence Marx's estate.[4] Plaintiff asserts
that “Defendant and counsel's actions have
undermined the integrity of th[e] Informal Probate of The
Matter of Lawrence Eugene Marx (Deceased)” by filing an
allegedly fraudulent “Inventory and Appraisal”
with the probate court.[5]
LEGAL
STANDARD
A
United States District Court is a court of limited, not
general, jurisdiction, and a district court is obligated to
consider sua sponte (on its own initiative) whether
it has subject matter jurisdiction.[6] “Subject-matter
jurisdiction can never be waived or
forfeited.”[7] A federal district court generally has the
authority to hear only two types of civil cases: cases in
which there is federal question jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, and cases in which there is diversity
jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.[8]
Section
1331 confers jurisdiction over civil actions Aarising under@
federal law.[9] “[A] suit ‘arises under'
federal law ‘only when the plaintiff's statement of
his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal
law].'”[10] Federal law is not at issue in this
case. Diversity jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff have
“citizenship which is diverse from that of every
defendant.”[11] In addition, to establish diversity
jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,
000.[12] Here, there may well be diversity of
citizenship between Plaintiff and all Defendants. However,
“diversity jurisdiction does not exist for two major
types of cases: probate matters and domestic relations cases
involving divorce, alimony, and child custody
matters.”[13] As explained by the Supreme Court,
“the probate exception reserves to state probate courts
the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of
a decedent's estate; it also precludes federal courts
from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the
custody of a state probate court.”[14]
ANALYSIS
Here,
even if there was diversity of citizenship and a sufficient
amount in controversy, the probate exception to diversity
jurisdiction precludes this Court from exercising
jurisdiction. The Court takes judicial notice that probate
case no. 1JU-17-78PR, involving the estate of decedent
Lawrence Marx, is currently open with David Marx appearing as
an intervenor.[15] Similarly, the public record of the
trust registration, 1KE-91-3TR, indicates David Marx has a
motion pending before the Ketchikan court, seeking the
appointment of a successor trustee.[16]
David
Marx seeks relief in this federal case that is substantially
intertwined with both of the currently pending state probate
proceedings. He alleges that the personal representative of
his father's estate trespassed onto the Tenakee Springs
property, and then proceeded to “sell-off, move,
transfer, convey, or confer upon himself assets belonging to
the Trust” from the Tenakee Springs
property.[17] David Marx also alleges James C. Marx
and his attorney(s) knew of assets, including real estate in
Hyder, Alaska, that was intended to be a part of the trust in
addition to the Tenakee Springs real estate, but committed
fraud by alleging to the probate court that such property was
part of the estate.[18] David Marx seeks “the annulment of
the Testament of Lawrence Eugene Marx (Deceased)” and
“INJUNCTIVE -TRO (remedies): ORDERING (DEFENDANT-S) to
return (all) real properties-valuables-monie(s)
‘taken' by DEFENDANT-S via BREACH LIVING TRUST,
felony theft, and or extortion[] inter
alia.”[19] These claims fall squarely within the
probate exception to a federal court's diversity
jurisdiction, such that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to hear them.
IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The
Motion to Re-Open Civil Action Case No. 3:16-cv-00288-SLG at
Docket 8 is DENIED.
2. All
other outstanding motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The
case shall remain closed.[20]
---------