H1 Lincoln, Inc. v. 865 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET REALTY TRUST
Plaintiff: H1 Lincoln, Inc doing business as Majestic Honda
Defendant: 865 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET REALTY TRUST
Case Number: 1:2020cv11294
Filed: July 9, 2020
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Presiding Judge: Mark G Mastroianni
Referring Judge: Douglas P Woodlock
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS RSS Track this Docket
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 20, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 20, 2020 Filing 15 Remark: Pursuant to this courts 22 order of remand, this courts original records has been sent electronically via email to the Massachusetts Bristol Probate & Family Court clerk's office, at 40 Broadway, Ste 240, Taunton, MA 02780. The records sent include the following key documents; The Notice of Removal (Dkt. No. 1), the Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. No. 4), the memo in support to consolidate (Dkt. No. 5), the Motion to Remand and memo in support (Dkt. No's. 12 & 13), the Opposition to motion to remand (Dkt. No. 18), the order granting remand (Dkt. No. 21), the Order of Remand (Dkt. No. 22). And A CERTIFIED copy of this case docket sheet, we will provide any further documents from this case that the State Court needs. (Lindsay, Maurice)
July 20, 2020 Filing 14 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. ORDER OF REMAND to the State CourtAssociated Cases: 1:20-cv-11291-MGM, 1:20-cv-11293-MGM, 1:20-cv-11294-MGM, 1:20-cv-11295-MGM (Lindsay, Maurice)
July 20, 2020 Filing 13 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 12 Emergency Motion to Remand to State Court. As the removing parties, Defendants have the burden of demonstrating that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction by overcoming the presumption that a case lies outside of a federal court's limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Viqueira v. First Bank, 140 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1998). The court concludes Defendants have not met their burden here. As reflected in the trust documents and the controlling case law, the trusts at issue here are clearly "nominee trusts," rather than so-called traditional trusts. See Goodwill Enterprises, Inc. v. Kavanagh, 132 N.E.3d 129, 133 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019) (citing Roberts v. Roberts, 646 N.E.2d 1061, 1062 n.2 (Mass. 1995)). "Nominee trusts have been described as bare title-holding arrangements," and unlike traditional trusts, "the trustees of a nominee trust have no power, as such, to act in respect of the trust property, but may only act at the direction of... the beneficiaries." Id. at 133 (internal quotation marks omitted). "Thus, the trustees of a nominee trust are often viewed as agents for the convenience of the principals (i.e., the beneficiaries)." Id. Massachusetts courts therefore "treat[] the beneficiaries of a nominee trust as the true owners of the property for the purposes of liability as well as benefit" and "have disregarded the trustees' record ownership of the property" to impose liability "directly on the beneficiaries." Id. (citing cases). In this respect, the trusts at issue here are similar to the trust in Americold Realty Tr. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012, 1016 (2016), and there, like here, the trust was named as the defendant in state court. See id. ("Navarro reaffirmed a separate rule that when a trustee files a lawsuit in her name, her jurisdictional citizenship is the State to which she belongs -- as is true of any natural person.... This rule coexists with our discussion above that when an artificial entity is sued in its name, it takes the citizenship of each of its members."). Accordingly, the court is persuaded that it must look to the citizenship of the trusts' beneficiaries, who are the real and substantial parties, for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction. See Navarro Sav. Ass'n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 461 (1980) ("[A] federal court must disregard nominal or formal parties and rest jurisdiction only upon the citizenship of real parties to the controversy."). Although the court recognizes that the governing case law does not explicitly answer this precise question, the presumption against federal jurisdiction and Defendants' burden militate in favor of Plaintiff's position. As Defendants have not provided the court with the names or citizenship of any of the beneficiaries, they have not met their burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, the court finds that the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction applies under these particular circumstances, where Plaintiff seeks the removal of the trustee. See United States v. Paulson, 2019 WL 1418058, at *3 (S.D. Cal. March 29, 2019); see also Jimenez v. Rodriguez-Pagan, 597 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2010) ("[F]ederal courts have no authority to 'interfere with the probate proceedings or assume general jurisdiction of the probate or control of the property in the custody of the state court.'" (quoting Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946)). These consolidated cases are therefore remanded back to state court. (Lindsay, Maurice)
July 14, 2020 Filing 12 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: #1 Notice of Removal. Plaintiff has filed a motion (Dkt. No. 12) which includes a challenge to removal from state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the court may not act in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, and in light of the potential urgency of the underlying trustee removal request, the court hereby orders the Defendant to file a responsive memorandum by no later than noon on July 16, 2020. The memorandum should address whether this court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the consolidated cases and Plaintiff's requests for preliminary relief. The court will hear arguments on Friday, July 17, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-11291-MGM, 1:20-cv-11293-MGM, 1:20-cv-11294-MGM, 1:20-cv-11295-MGM(Healy, Bethaney)
July 14, 2020 Filing 11 MEMORANDUM in Support re #10 Emergency MOTION to Remand to State Court or, in the Alternative, Schedule a Hearing on Plaintiff's Requests for Preliminary Relief filed by H1 Lincoln, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(McDonough, Michael)
July 14, 2020 Filing 10 Emergency MOTION to Remand to State Court or, in the Alternative, Schedule a Hearing on Plaintiff's Requests for Preliminary Relief by H1 Lincoln, Inc.(McDonough, Michael)
July 14, 2020 Filing 9 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case RE-Assignment. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. (Finn, Mary)
July 14, 2020 Filing 8 Judge Douglas P. Woodlock - ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. This matter is hereby re-assigned to Judge Mastroianni as related to 3:19-cv-10397-MGM pursuant to Local Rule 40.1 (i)(1), per the Order of Judge Wolf.Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-11295-DPW, 1:20-cv-11291-MGM, 1:20-cv-11293-MGM, 1:20-cv-11294-DPW, 3:19-cv-10397-MGM(Beatty, Barbara)
July 14, 2020 Filing 7 Judge Douglas P. Woodlock - ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. This matter is hereby re-assigned to Judge Mastroianni as related to 3:19-cv-10397-MGM pursuant to Local Rule 40.1 (i)(1), per the Order of Judge Wolf. Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-11294-DPW, 1:20-cv-11291-MGM, 1:20-cv-11293-MGM, 1:20-cv-11295-DPW, 3:19-cv-10397-MGM(Beatty, Barbara)
July 14, 2020 Filing 6 Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #4 Plaintiff's Assented to Motion to Consolidate Cases. (Beatty, Barbara)
July 10, 2020 Filing 5 MEMORANDUM in Support re #4 Assented to MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by H1 Lincoln, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(McDonough, Michael)
July 10, 2020 Filing 4 Assented to MOTION to Consolidate Cases by H1 Lincoln, Inc.(McDonough, Michael)
July 9, 2020 Filing 3 Certified Copy of Notice of Removal Provided to Defense Counsel by Email. (Pacho, Arnold)
July 9, 2020 Filing 2 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Douglas P. Woodlock assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell. (Finn, Mary)
July 9, 2020 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by 865 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET REALTY TRUST ( Filing fee: $ 400, receipt number 0101-8321711 Fee Status: Filing Fee paid) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 State Court Petition, #3 Motion, #4 Local Category, #5 Civil Cover Sheet)(Briansky, Richard)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: H1 Lincoln, Inc. v. 865 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET REALTY TRUST
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: H1 Lincoln, Inc doing business as Majestic Honda
Represented By: John J. Egan
Represented By: Michael G. McDonough
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: 865 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET REALTY TRUST
Represented By: Richard E. Briansky
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?