Benson v. Rosenthal
ORDER AND REASONS denying Mary R. Rowe's 50 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THOMAS BENSON, JR.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Mary R. Rowe's Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction (R. Doc. 50). For the following reasons, the Motion is
This is an action for declaratory judgment in which Plaintiff, appearing as
grantor of several trusts, asks this Court to issue a judgment declaring that his
attempt to exchange certain assets held by those trusts for other assets of
equivalent value was effective. Plaintiff is Thomas Benson, the successful and
wealthy owner of the New Orleans Saints and New Orleans Pelicans franchises.
Over the course of several years, Plaintiff established various trusts for the
benefit of his daughter and grandchildren. Plaintiff created three trusts in
2009,1 three trusts in 2012 (the "2012 Trusts"),2 a Grantor Retained Annuity
Trust in 2012,3 and a Grantor Retained Annuity Trust in 2014.4
Defendant Robert Rosenthal served as trustee of all of the aforementioned
trusts at the time of the filing of this lawsuit. After the filing of this suit,
however, Rosenthal resigned as trustee of all of the 2012 Trusts. Mary R. Rowe
accepted her appointment as successor trustee on March 25, 2015. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c), Plaintiff joined Rowe as a defendant in
In May 2015, Defendant Robert Rosenthal filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2). This Court denied that motion, holding that it has specific jurisdiction
over Defendant Rosenthal. In the instant Motion, Defendant Rowe now seeks
dismissal of the claims against her on substantially the same grounds.
In its Order and Reasons discussing Defendant Rosenthal's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, this Court specifically noted that:
"Plaintiff correctly states that a finding of personal jurisdiction over Rosenthal
will operate as a finding of personal jurisdiction over Rowe, as a substituted
The trusts are the Renee Benson 2009 Irrevocable Trust, the Rita Benson LeBlanc
2009 Irrevocable Trust, and the Ryan LeBlanc 2009 Irrevocable Trust.
The trusts are the Renee Benson 2012 Irrevocable Trust, the Rita Benson LeBlanc
2012 Irrevocable Trust, and the Ryan LeBlanc 2012 Irrevocable Trust.
The Tom Benson 2012 Grantor Retained Annuity Trust.
The Tom Benson 2014 Grantor Retained Annuity Trust.
successor-in-interest."5 This Court reiterates that holding here.6 Accordingly,
Defendant Rowe's Motion is denied for all of the reasons articulated by this
Court in its order denying Defendant Rosenthal's Motion.7 That opinion is
incorporated by reference here.
For the foregoing reasons, this Motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of October, 2015.
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
R. Doc. 36.
See Patin v. Thoroughbred Power Boats Inc., 294 F.3d 640, 653 (5th Cir. 2002)
("[F]ederal courts have consistently acknowledged that it is compatible with due process for a
court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an individual or a corporation that would not
ordinarily be subject to personal jurisdiction in that court when the individual or corporation
is an alter ego or successor of a corporation that would be subject to personal jurisdiction in
that court."); ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1958 (3d
ed.) ("The court, if it sees fit, may allow the transferee to be substituted for the transferor. It
also is free, if it wishes, to retain the transferor as a party and to order that the transferee be
made an additional party. In either case, personal jurisdiction and venue will be extended over
the successor; it is not necessary to re-establish those requirements.").
See R. Doc. 26.
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?