Long v. Okopny

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 19, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02211
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jane Long, No. CV-20-02211-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Estate of Charles Walis Haeger, Oakland County (Michigan) cause number 2020- 13 0000396732-DE,

14 Defendant. 15 16 On November 17, 2020, Plaintiff Jane Long filed this action, naming as the sole 17 Defendant “The Estate of Charles Wallis Haeger, Oakland County (Michigan) cause 18 number 2020-0000396732-DE.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) The facts alleged are tragic. According 19 to the complaint, Charles Haeger shot and killed Plaintiff’s daughter, Danielle Breed, 20 with whom he had a romantic relationship, and then shot and killed himself. (Id. ¶¶ 2-6.) 21 After Mr. Haeger’s death, his estate was created in the State of Michigan. (Id. ¶ 7.) 22 Kelly Okopny is the personal representative of the estate. (Id.) 23 Plaintiff brings three claims, each of which arises under Arizona law (id. ¶¶ 21- 24 38), and asserts that this Court “is vested with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 25 because of diversity of citizenship and because the value of the claim is more than 26 $75,000.00” (id. ¶ 18). 27 Under Arizona law, “[a]n estate is a collection of the decedent’s assets and 28 liabilities. As such, it has no capacity to bring or defend a lawsuit. Simply put, an estate 1 || cannot ‘act.’ Rather, it can only sue and be sued through its personal representative, who 2|| ‘acts’ on behalf of the estate.” Ader v. Estate of Felger, 375 P.3d 97, 104 (Ariz. Ct. App. || 2016). Thus, it appears that the proper defendant in this action should be Kelly Okopny, 4|| who should be sued in his or her capacity as the representative of Mr. Haeger’s estate. 5 || See Norwood v. Ariz. Dep’t of Child Safety, 2020 WL 4003263, *2 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2020). 6 Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint naming the proper defendant to 7|| this action.' Because this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction rests on the diversity of the 8 || parties, the amended complaint must allege the personal representative’s citizenship 9|| (state of domicile) for diversity purposes. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The personal representative’s citizenship can be pled on information || and belief. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2014) (allowing plaintiff to plead jurisdictional allegations on information and belief 13 || “where the facts supporting jurisdiction [were] not reasonably ascertainable by the plaintiff’). 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS ORDERED that by December 9, 2020, Plaintiff shall file an amended || complaint in accordance with this order. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely file her amended 19 || complaint, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for failure to 20 || name a cognizable defendant. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after Plaintiff files her amended complaint, 22 || the Clerk of Court shall change the caption of this case to reflect the proper defendant. 23 Dated this 19th day of November, 2020.

25 "Dominic W. Lanza 6 United States District Judge 27 | This amended complaint pursuant to court order will not affect Plaintiff's right under Rule 15(a)(1) to later amend once as a matter of course, if she chooses to do so. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1006-09 (9th Cir. 2015). _2-