NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LOUIS S. GRANT, JR., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 18-10672 (RK) (TJB) □ MEMORANDUM ORDER JOHN MANFREDA, ESQ., former Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Louis S. Grant, Sr., Defendant.
KIRSCH, District Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court by way of John Manfreda, Esq.’s (“Defendant”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 80 (“Def. Mot”).) Plaintiff Louis S. Grant, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) opposes this Motion. (ECF No. 80-3 (“Pl. Opp.”).) Because the jurisdictional statement in this case has been insufficiently pled as it relates to Defendant’s citizenship and residence—and therefore, the Court cannot ascertain if complete diversity in this case exists—the Court directs the parties to show cause within twenty (20) days of this Memorandum Order as to why complete diversity in this case exists and why the Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court therefore administratively terminates without prejudice the motion for summary judgment pending the resolution of this briefing. (See ECF No. 80.) The motion for summary judgment will be reopened should the issue of subject matter jurisdiction be resolved. On February 13, 2001, Plaintiff’s father, Louis S. Grant, Sr. (“Senior”) passed away. (ECF No. 80 at 4 (““DSUMF”) § 1.) Senior’s death resulted in protracted litigation surrounding the
disposition of Senior’s Estate amongst his three children—including Plaintiff.' On June 15, 2018—around five years after the publication of the most recent state court opinion—Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant in this Court. (See ECF No. 1.) Invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff sets forth two state law causes of action: Breach of Fiduciary Duties (Count I) and Legal Malpractice (Count I). Defendant declined to file a motion to dismiss the matter, and instead, filed his Answer on October 12, 2018. (See ECF No. 5.) Thus, the present motion for summary judgment is the first dispositive motion before the Court. Following a long period of motion practice surrounding the parties’ discovery obligations, the case was reassigned to the undersigned on May 15, 2023. (See ECF No. 72.) The undersigned referred the case to mediation on June 6, 2023. (See ECF No. 76.) After mediation between the parties failed, (see ECF No. 78), the present motion for summary judgment was fully briefed in May 2024. (See ECF No. 80.) For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “[a] natural person is deemed to be a citizen of the state where he is domiciled.” Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179, 182 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 569 (1915)).” Upon its review of the record, the Court
! This litigation occurred in New Jersey state court and included at least three separate cases that went on appeal. E.g., In re Estate of Grant, No. A-2014-04T2, 2007 WL 1284913, at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 3, 2007) (“Grant I’); In re Estate of Grant, No. A-0078-09T2, 2010 WL 4940031, at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 7, 2010) (“Grant I’); In re Estate of Grant, No. A-3658-11T3, 2013 WL 2300994, at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 28, 2013) (appended to Defendant’s Motion at Ex. B) (‘Grant III’). The present case is the first case filed in federal court surrounding this matter. As explained by the Third Circuit: A party’s citizenship for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction is synonymous with domicile. McCann vy. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 286 (Gd Cir. 2006). Domicile is an individual’s “true, fixed and permanent home and place of habitation. It is the place to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.” Jd. (citing Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 454 (1973)). Therefore, . .. domicile is established by a party’s physical presence in a state with an intent to remain there indefinitely. See Juvelis v. Snider, 68 F.3d 648, 654 (3d Cir. 1995).
findssus ap otnhtdaeit v ejrusriitsyhd aibsce teiinno snuffi cipelneatsdnl ofay c tssurr ounding Defendadnotm'isanc dic liet izheanvbseeh eipnpi eAdl.t hotuhlgeah co kfs ubjmeacttt er jurishdainsco bttei eronan i bsyDe edfe ndtahnCeto ,ui rbsto untdor evtihebewa soifis to sw n submjaetcjtture irs dainctdth Cieoo unm,rar tya ithsiees souafle a ocsfku bjecjtu rmiastdtiecrt io aanty t imPee.r ryG ovn.z a47l2Fe .sS ,u p2pd6. 2 632,(6 D .N2.0J0(.7s )t atthtiahnt"eg l aocfk subjecjtur imsadtmitacebytre ri aoinbs yte hdCe o urstus ap oanattn ety i m(ei.n"t ceirntaalt ions
omittseeadel) Fs)eo;dR ..C iPv.1. 2 (h()"(tI3hfc)e o udrett ermaitan netysi mtehi altta cks subjecjtu-rmiasttdthiececro t umiruotsnd t,i smtihasecs t i(oenm.p"ha adsdieAsdd )d)r.e ssing submjaetcjtture irs daittch tjiiunsoc nti uasrp ep roiplnri igoahfttt hefa e c thta tth ehrabese enno deciyseirtoe nn dientr hecidas sA en.id n deeda,j usdignemcneretne etbd ya c outrhtla atc ks submjaetcjttue rri sidvsio cittdhiC,eoo nurtn oewv altuhajituser si sdbiacsStieiAseor. nm asltr ong vB.urdTeotmtMleei mnH' ols pN.o0,.0 -3240401WL6, 1 891a7t*5 49(, D .NJ.uJ7l.,2y 0 06) (c olleccatsrieensgg a trhdveio nigdo ifanj gu dgwmheensrtue b jmeactjttu erri sddiindco tti on exist). Int hciassP el,a iinntviotffkh eCisos u srutb'mjsae tcjtture irs dictito2on8 U .pSu.rCs.u ant §133g2i vtehnPa lta iinsatr ieffs iodfPe ennnts yl(vEaCnNFio a1.(, " Comp,rl4. ,)"an )d
Defendian"stan a ttolrniecyet nposr eadci tthnie Sc teoa Nfte ew J erwsieatly ha owffi cleo cated ..i.nH unterCdoounntS ya,[t seoi fNc e]w J ers(eI,ryd5. .)P" .l aipnlteitaffhdth aseta mounitn contreoxvcee$re7sd5ys, 3 0H0o0w.etvheCero ,m pflaatiisolnt stta htceei tizoefDn esfehnidpa nt, Frettv-.VS amnipottoeh5lr 1,F1 . 33d9 460,0 -(03C1di 2r0.0 8). 3W hitlheae m ouinnct o ntroivnte hcriasssiy eis n artpfu.llecldoy,u "rtgse nyer reaollnytl hpel aintiffs allegoatfth iaeom nosui ncnto ntrocvoenrtsayii ntnh ceeod m plRaoivnyR.t a .m"sM eoyvg iSy nsN.o,1. 5 - 333200,1W 6L 1 1639a3t*2 2(, D .NM.aJr2..32 ,0 1(6c)i toamtiitoDtniessd m)i.os nas nia nls ufficiently pijeudr isadalim cotu"inioatsnp proiptfrh ideae tfeen dcaadnnet m onsttrhtaahttjee u risdaimcotuinotn al cannboetm eto,ri ffr,o mt hper oioatfp ,p etaoarl se gcaelr ttahitanhttpe yl aiinnsto ietffn tittotl headt amouIndtN..os" u cahl legbayDt eifeonndsha anvhtee re rbaeinesoneir dts h earnieyn dicfraotmti hoen anadc cortdihCneog uclrannyto, bt ec ertthacaiotnm pdlievteeer xsiiisttntyh s i s Imnasttteera.d , Plaionntslityffa th taeDtse fendian"stan a ttolrniecyet nopsr eadci tntih Scete ao tfNe e Jwe rsey wiatl ha owffi cleo cia.tn.e H.dun terCdoounnt. y." .4( .C om,rp5 l.F.)urt hecro nfumsaittnegr s, an" AffidoafMv eir"tii ctsi taettdh e en odfth isst atewmhieacnphtp ewahrosunrl ellya ttoe d Defendadnotm'ioscrc i iltei zTehniAffissdh aivpoi.ftM eriisatp pentdothe eCd o mplaasi nt
ExhiAb,ai nitdit ans affidcaovmiptlb eyant oetdhi enrd ividuaMlc-CKoarmtCihaclmkep ein, Esq.-wohuitclMhis nC.ea sm ppir'osfe sospiionniiansolu n p poofPr lta inCtoimfpfl(saS ienet . ECFN o1.- 1T.hp)ir so vniocd leasor nti htqeyu esotfcio omnp dlievteear nsidin tsytd,ee aedp,e ns theC ourt'usn certthaaciton mtpidleiesvt eeer xsiisttys . Overtahiliansls ,i nsuffijcuireinstds itcattiteoiomnn eavnldot ik vee jrursiisitdoySin ec.et SchuvlC.ta zl5 l82yF ,.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LOUIS S. GRANT, JR., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 18-10672 (RK) (TJB) □ MEMORANDUM ORDER JOHN MANFREDA, ESQ., former Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Louis S. Grant, Sr., Defendant.
KIRSCH, District Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court by way of John Manfreda, Esq.’s (“Defendant”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 80 (“Def. Mot”).) Plaintiff Louis S. Grant, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) opposes this Motion. (ECF No. 80-3 (“Pl. Opp.”).) Because the jurisdictional statement in this case has been insufficiently pled as it relates to Defendant’s citizenship and residence—and therefore, the Court cannot ascertain if complete diversity in this case exists—the Court directs the parties to show cause within twenty (20) days of this Memorandum Order as to why complete diversity in this case exists and why the Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court therefore administratively terminates without prejudice the motion for summary judgment pending the resolution of this briefing. (See ECF No. 80.) The motion for summary judgment will be reopened should the issue of subject matter jurisdiction be resolved. On February 13, 2001, Plaintiff’s father, Louis S. Grant, Sr. (“Senior”) passed away. (ECF No. 80 at 4 (““DSUMF”) § 1.) Senior’s death resulted in protracted litigation surrounding the
disposition of Senior’s Estate amongst his three children—including Plaintiff.' On June 15, 2018—around five years after the publication of the most recent state court opinion—Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant in this Court. (See ECF No. 1.) Invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff sets forth two state law causes of action: Breach of Fiduciary Duties (Count I) and Legal Malpractice (Count I). Defendant declined to file a motion to dismiss the matter, and instead, filed his Answer on October 12, 2018. (See ECF No. 5.) Thus, the present motion for summary judgment is the first dispositive motion before the Court. Following a long period of motion practice surrounding the parties’ discovery obligations, the case was reassigned to the undersigned on May 15, 2023. (See ECF No. 72.) The undersigned referred the case to mediation on June 6, 2023. (See ECF No. 76.) After mediation between the parties failed, (see ECF No. 78), the present motion for summary judgment was fully briefed in May 2024. (See ECF No. 80.) For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “[a] natural person is deemed to be a citizen of the state where he is domiciled.” Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179, 182 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 569 (1915)).” Upon its review of the record, the Court
! This litigation occurred in New Jersey state court and included at least three separate cases that went on appeal. E.g., In re Estate of Grant, No. A-2014-04T2, 2007 WL 1284913, at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 3, 2007) (“Grant I’); In re Estate of Grant, No. A-0078-09T2, 2010 WL 4940031, at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 7, 2010) (“Grant I’); In re Estate of Grant, No. A-3658-11T3, 2013 WL 2300994, at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 28, 2013) (appended to Defendant’s Motion at Ex. B) (‘Grant III’). The present case is the first case filed in federal court surrounding this matter. As explained by the Third Circuit: A party’s citizenship for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction is synonymous with domicile. McCann vy. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 286 (Gd Cir. 2006). Domicile is an individual’s “true, fixed and permanent home and place of habitation. It is the place to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.” Jd. (citing Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 454 (1973)). Therefore, . .. domicile is established by a party’s physical presence in a state with an intent to remain there indefinitely. See Juvelis v. Snider, 68 F.3d 648, 654 (3d Cir. 1995).
findssus ap otnhtdaeit v ejrusriitsyhd aibsce teiinno snuffi cipelneatsdnl ofay c tssurr ounding Defendadnotm'isanc dic liet izheanvbseeh eipnpi eAdl.t hotuhlgeah co kfs ubjmeacttt er jurishdainsco bttei eronan i bsyDe edfe ndtahnCeto ,ui rbsto untdor evtihebewa soifis to sw n submjaetcjtture irs dainctdth Cieoo unm,rar tya ithsiees souafle a ocsfku bjecjtu rmiastdtiecrt io aanty t imPee.r ryG ovn.z a47l2Fe .sS ,u p2pd6. 2 632,(6 D .N2.0J0(.7s )t atthtiahnt"eg l aocfk subjecjtur imsadtmitacebytre ri aoinbs yte hdCe o urstus ap oanattn ety i m(ei.n"t ceirntaalt ions
omittseeadel) Fs)eo;dR ..C iPv.1. 2 (h()"(tI3hfc)e o udrett ermaitan netysi mtehi altta cks subjecjtu-rmiasttdthiececro t umiruotsnd t,i smtihasecs t i(oenm.p"ha adsdieAsdd )d)r.e ssing submjaetcjtture irs daittch tjiiunsoc nti uasrp ep roiplnri igoahfttt hefa e c thta tth ehrabese enno deciyseirtoe nn dientr hecidas sA en.id n deeda,j usdignemcneretne etbd ya c outrhtla atc ks submjaetcjttue rri sidvsio cittdhiC,eoo nurtn oewv altuhajituser si sdbiacsStieiAseor. nm asltr ong vB.urdTeotmtMleei mnH' ols pN.o0,.0 -3240401WL6, 1 891a7t*5 49(, D .NJ.uJ7l.,2y 0 06) (c olleccatsrieensgg a trhdveio nigdo ifanj gu dgwmheensrtue b jmeactjttu erri sddiindco tti on exist). Int hciassP el,a iinntviotffkh eCisos u srutb'mjsae tcjtture irs dictito2on8 U .pSu.rCs.u ant §133g2i vtehnPa lta iinsatr ieffs iodfPe ennnts yl(vEaCnNFio a1.(, " Comp,rl4. ,)"an )d
Defendian"stan a ttolrniecyet nposr eadci tthnie Sc teoa Nfte ew J erwsieatly ha owffi cleo cated ..i.nH unterCdoounntS ya,[t seoi fNc e]w J ers(eI,ryd5. .)P" .l aipnlteitaffhdth aseta mounitn contreoxvcee$re7sd5ys, 3 0H0o0w.etvheCero ,m pflaatiisolnt stta htceei tizoefDn esfehnidpa nt, Frettv-.VS amnipottoeh5lr 1,F1 . 33d9 460,0 -(03C1di 2r0.0 8). 3W hitlheae m ouinnct o ntroivnte hcriasssiy eis n artpfu.llecldoy,u "rtgse nyer reaollnytl hpel aintiffs allegoatfth iaeom nosui ncnto ntrocvoenrtsayii ntnh ceeod m plRaoivnyR.t a .m"sM eoyvg iSy nsN.o,1. 5 - 333200,1W 6L 1 1639a3t*2 2(, D .NM.aJr2..32 ,0 1(6c)i toamtiitoDtniessd m)i.os nas nia nls ufficiently pijeudr isadalim cotu"inioatsnp proiptfrh ideae tfeen dcaadnnet m onsttrhtaahttjee u risdaimcotuinotn al cannboetm eto,ri ffr,o mt hper oioatfp ,p etaoarl se gcaelr ttahitanhttpe yl aiinnsto ietffn tittotl headt amouIndtN..os" u cahl legbayDt eifeonndsha anvhtee re rbaeinesoneir dts h earnieyn dicfraotmti hoen anadc cortdihCneog uclrannyto, bt ec ertthacaiotnm pdlievteeer xsiiisttntyh s i s Imnasttteera.d , Plaionntslityffa th taeDtse fendian"stan a ttolrniecyet nopsr eadci tntih Scete ao tfNe e Jwe rsey wiatl ha owffi cleo cia.tn.e H.dun terCdoounnt. y." .4( .C om,rp5 l.F.)urt hecro nfumsaittnegr s, an" AffidoafMv eir"tii ctsi taettdh e en odfth isst atewmhieacnphtp ewahrosunrl ellya ttoe d Defendadnotm'ioscrc i iltei zTehniAffissdh aivpoi.ftM eriisatp pentdothe eCd o mplaasi nt
ExhiAb,ai nitdit ans affidcaovmiptlb eyant oetdhi enrd ividuaMlc-CKoarmtCihaclmkep ein, Esq.-wohuitclMhis nC.ea sm ppir'osfe sospiionniiansolu n p poofPr lta inCtoimfpfl(saS ienet . ECFN o1.- 1T.hp)ir so vniocd leasor nti htqeyu esotfcio omnp dlievteear nsidin tsytd,ee aedp,e ns theC ourt'usn certthaaciton mtpidleiesvt eeer xsiisttys . Overtahiliansls ,i nsuffijcuireinstds itcattiteoiomnn eavnldot ik vee jrursiisitdoySin ec.et SchuvlC.ta zl5 l82yF ,. 24d74 07,(33 Cdi 1r9.7 (5n)o thtaiwtnh ge prleai natlilffed geefedn dant waasn" AttoarnLtea yow f t hSet aotfNe e Ywo rhka,v hiinpsgr inpcliaopcfbae ul s ian1te5 s0s BroadNweaYwyo ,rC ki tNye,Yw o rkt[h,wi]asi"s n suftfipocl iedeaindvt e jrusriitsyad nidc tion "s[] inthceer[ ew enroeo ]t halelre gaetviearongn usa rbellyet vthoane ct i tizoeftn hpsearth iieps ,
thceo mplfaaiiln[tteso de fo]tr tthhe el emoeftn htcesl aidmievde rRsoistayvrH..ia" os) s;Na on., 13-125001W93L, 2 1822a,3t* 4 2( D.MNa.yJ1 .72 ,0 1(3")Tc hiet izoefDn esfehnidipanns to t sefotr thi tnh Ceo mplTahiCeno tm.p liadiennttt hiDefie efesn daasYn uts uHfaMs.s Aatnt,o rney
rectohrPadlt a inatlilffeasgs esdu mopf"t 9i7o.no8 fth% e"E stadteeab'nttsd ax eosw ewdo ubleld e ss th$a7n5 ,000. 4W itthhisenu mmjaurdygm reenctto hredr,ne ofa cattrshew a outl edl uctihdiiasstsF euo eerx. a mple, in Defendant'st oPAn lsawienIrtnsit fefrsr ongoaa dtdorrelisiessfos tr,Die esdfe ndaanniditt n,s o ted that hec abnec ont"atcohturegcdho un(sEeClNF.o3 ".6 -E1x B.aatt1 .) Evnel ookaiDtne gfe ndAannstw'iesatr l ,s o plrioctvltiarlodienett shyi i sssI unree .s ptopona srea g5r aph itnh Ceo mpltahAienn stw,re eraa dsfosl lo"wDse:fe naddamntitht haseit a s na ttornaenwyda asp pointed AdminiCsTtAar naAdtt otro fornret yhE es taanttdeh ,ha itos ffi ciels o caattte haded driensdsi cated." (ECNFo5 .,r 5 .) at Law, who allegedly maintains a place of business at 245 Broadway, Paterson, New Jersey 07501. An address or business address is not sufficient to establish citizenship .. . even assuming that plaintiff has adequately alleged a residence or business location, Defendant’s citizenship is not stated.”) Likewise, here—where the only basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is diversity—the only information presented to the Court that complete diversity exists is that Defendant’s law firm is in New Jersey and that Defendant is admitted to practice law in New Jersey. His citizenship has not been pled. It is not apparent to the Court that complete diversity exists given this defect. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to show cause within twenty (20) days of this Memorandum Order as to why the Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of lack of complete diversity. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 80), is administratively terminated and shall be reopened if complete diversity is sufficiently shown. IT IS on this 2" of December, 2024, ORDERED that: l. The parties are ordered to show cause within twenty (20) days of this Memorandum Order as to why complete diversity exists and the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in this matter is appropriate; and 2. The Clerk of the Court shall administratively terminate the motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 80), without prejudice to the ability to reopen this Motion pending the resolution of the jurisdictional questions outlined herein. (poh ROBERT KIRSCH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE