Fullerton v. Hall

S.D. New York

Fullerton v. Hall

758 F. Supp. 927, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2902, 1991 WL 38062

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMarch 11, 1991

DocketNo. 90 Civ. 7911 (RPP)

StatusPublished

This text of 758 F. Supp. 927 (Fullerton v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fullerton v. Hall, 758 F. Supp. 927, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2902, 1991 WL 38062 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[928]*928OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT P. PATTERSON, Jr., District Judge.

The Court denies plaintiff’s application dated March 4, 1991 to reopen this case on the grounds (1) that plaintiff was not served with the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of diversity, and (2) that diversity of citizenship in fact exists. Defendant’s motion papers contained an Affidavit of Service dated January 16, 1991 addressed to plaintiff at her present address. Furthermore, review of plaintiffs papers indicates that, although Ms. Fullerton is apparently now a resident of New York, the estate is a Massachusetts estate. Accordingly, there is lacking the requisite element of diversity for this Court to take jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claim. Furthermore, plaintiff acknowledges that, prior to the initiation of this suit, she initiated, and there is still pending, identical litigation against defendant in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts action alleges damages for malpractice by the defendant, an attorney, in connection with the probate and administration of the estate in Dukes County, Massachusetts, where decedent was a resident when she died. The Court deems plaintiff’s application as a motion to reargue. The motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[928]*928OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT P. PATTERSON, Jr., District Judge.

The Court denies plaintiff’s application dated March 4, 1991 to reopen this case on the grounds (1) that plaintiff was not served with the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of diversity, and (2) that diversity of citizenship in fact exists. Defendant’s motion papers contained an Affidavit of Service dated January 16, 1991 addressed to plaintiff at her present address. Furthermore, review of plaintiffs papers indicates that, although Ms. Fullerton is apparently now a resident of New York, the estate is a Massachusetts estate. Accordingly, there is lacking the requisite element of diversity for this Court to take jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claim. Furthermore, plaintiff acknowledges that, prior to the initiation of this suit, she initiated, and there is still pending, identical litigation against defendant in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts action alleges damages for malpractice by the defendant, an attorney, in connection with the probate and administration of the estate in Dukes County, Massachusetts, where decedent was a resident when she died. The Court deems plaintiff’s application as a motion to reargue. The motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

758 F. Supp. 927, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2902, 1991 WL 38062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fullerton-v-hall-nysd-1991.