Mickelson v. Mickelson et al

Filing 45

OPINION AND ORDER: (1) Judith Mickelson's 43 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (2) Judith Mickelson's 44 Motion for Emergency Relief is DENIED as moot. (3) Clerk is DIRECTED to file the exhibit attached to Judith Mickelson's 44 Emergency Motion UNDER SEAL because it contains financial account information. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on March 8, 2017. (AWD) cc: COR,Pla via US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
AT LEXINGTON
JUDITH MICKELSON,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-267-KKC

Plaintiff,
V.

OPINION & ORDER

JULIAN MICKELSON, et al.,
Defendants.

*** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Judith Mickelson’s motion for reconsideration
(DE 43) and her motion for emergency relief (DE 44). For the following reasons, both motions
will be DENIED.
By previous opinion and order, this Court dismissed Judith’s1 claims against all
defendants because venue is improper in the Eastern District of Kentucky. (DE 41). In her
motion to reconsider, Judith argues that the Court’s previous order makes it “apparent that
the judge did not fully comprehend the complaint of the plaintiff.” (DE 43). The Court
construes this as an argument by Judith that venue is proper in this district. Upon review,
the Court will deny Judith’s motion for reconsideration.
Though the defendants bear the burden of establishing that venue is improper, they have
carried that burden in this case. See Means v. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 836 F.3d
643, 652 n.7 (6th Cir. 2016). Moreover, nothing Judith cites in her motion for reconsideration
changes the Court’s opinion.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought in:

For clarity, and to avoid repetitive use of the name Mickelson, the Court will refer to each Mickelson by his or
her first name.
1

1

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject
of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided
in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the
court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
Under the first method for establishing venue, a district in Illinois would be a proper
venue for this action. However, the Eastern District of Kentucky remains an improper venue
because none of the defendants live in this state, let alone in this district. (See DE 1,
Complaint at 1; DE 16-1, Motion at 11).
Further, as to the second method for establishing venue, Judith’s claims arise out of
alleged misconduct by the defendants as it relates to her inheritance. However, as the
defendants explained in their motions to dismiss: the trust instruments at issue and
amendments thereto were drafted by counsel in Chicago, Illinois; Judith’s parents executed
the trust instruments and any amendments thereto in Illinois; any and all documents
associated with the trust instruments are kept in Illinois; the trust’s assets are kept with The
PrivateBank and Trust Co. in Chicago; the trust is administered by Julian Mickelson, the
trustee, in Illinois; and none of the property at issue in this action is located in this district
because the trust assets are located in Illinois. (DE 16-1, Motion at 12).
Judith did not refute, or even address, these statements in her response to the defendants’
motions to dismiss. (DE 24). Instead, she made a vague reference to “a sham KY corporation,”
but did not elaborate on her argument. (DE 24).
In her motion to reconsider, Judith does allege certain contacts that the defendants may
have with Kentucky, but she fails to allege that a substantial portion of the events giving rise
to the litigation occurred in the Eastern District of Kentucky. The venue statute is concerned
2

with the second showing, not the first. Thus, this district is also not proper under the second
means of establishing venue.
Because venue can be established under either the first or second method, the third
means for establishing venue is inapplicable in this case.
In light of this determination, the Court will deny Judith’s motion for emergency relief as
moot. Venue is improper in this district, so the Court will not reach the merits of any relief
that Judith seeks.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) Judith Mickelson’s motion for reconsideration (DE 43) is DENIED;
(2) Judith Mickelson’s motion for emergency relief (DE 44) is DENIED as moot; and
(3) the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the exhibit attached to Judith Mickelson’s
emergency motion (DE 44-1) UNDER SEAL because it contains financial account
information.
Dated March 8, 2017.

3