Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grant v. Bostwick

United States District Court, S.D. California

July 20, 2016

JENNIFER GRANT, Plaintiff,
v.
HON. JEFFREY BOSTWICK, Defendant.

          ORDER

          WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge.

         The matters before the Court are: (1) the Motion for Sanctions and Costs (ECF No. 38) filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Grant, (2) the Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 40) filed by Defendant Honorable Jeffrey Bostwick, and (3) the Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time (ECF No. 48) filed by Plaintiff.

         I. Background

         On April 21, 2015, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of her Fourteenth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1).

         On July 15, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 9). On September 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stay state probate proceedings pending the resolution of this case. (ECF No. 15). On October 22, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction to stay probate proceedings. (ECF No. 23).

         On November 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Altering the Judgment of Docket #23." (ECF No. 25). On January 13, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff s motion. (ECF No. 32).

         On February 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 33). On February 23, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 34). On March 18, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting the motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 36). On March 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which became the operative pleading in this case. (ECF No. 37).

         On April 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed the motion for sanctions and costs based on Defendant's opposition to the motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 38). On April 7, 2016, Defendant filed the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 40). On April 22, 2016, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 42). On the same day, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 41). On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition to the motion for sanctions and costs. (ECF No. 43). On the same day, Defendant filed a reply to the opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 44). On May 27, 2016, with the Court's permission, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply to the motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 47).

         Oh June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to shorten time for decision on the motion for sanctions and costs and the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 48).

         II. Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

         A. Allegations of the First Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff Jennifer Grant is a beneficiary of the Schwichtenberg Revocable Family Trust ("trust"), dated July 28, 1982, *and is the trustee of the B subsection of the trust. (ECF No. 23 at ¶ 2). Defendant Jeffrey Bostwick is the judge presiding over the administration of the trust in San Diego Superior Court's Central Probate Provision. Id. ¶ 7.

         "Defendant inherited Pro-Per Plaintiffs case ... in September 2012 ... ." Id. ¶ 13. Upon the death of Plaintiff s mother, "Rusty [Grant], no relation to Plaintiff, was to become the trustee of section A of Plaintiff s parents' ABC inter-vivos trust. ..." Id. ¶14. "With no legal authority, Rusty took over all three sections of the trust the day Plaintiffs mother died." Id. ¶15.

         "Defendant lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Both Plaintiffs parent's wills specifically state that their intention in creating the trust was NOT to subject their assets to probate court." Id. ¶ 16.

Rusty/Larsen's petition opened the case purporting to be an internal affairs petition .... It was illegally plead due to: 1) Tack of capacity ... as Rusty claimed capacity as trustee of the whole trust 2) limitations of the trust terms regarding the duties accorded the trustee of section A post the last settlor's death, ... 3) failure to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.