Ullrich v. Moldt et al

Filing 79

ORDER by District Judge Judith C. Herrera Adopting Report and Recommendations 63 granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 32 (baw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
STEPHEN ULLRICH,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 17cv0141-JCH-JHR

ADDA MOLDT,
DAVID RIVER,
ROBERT JOHANN ULLRICH and
EVELYN GRACE ULLRICH,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
This matter comes before the Court on the Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition (“PFRD”) of Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter, Doc. 63, filed January 11, 2019, and
the objections of the Plaintiff, Stephen Ullrich, filed January 22, 2019. Doc. 64. The Court, having
conducted a de novo review of Mr. Ullrich’s objections, hereby overrules them and adopts the
PFRD for the reasons set forth below.
I)

Standard of Review
“Review of the magistrate judge’s ruling is required by the district court when a party

timely files written objections to that ruling.” Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 562, 566 (10th Cir.
1997). Specifically, “[d]e novo review is required when a party files timely written objections to
the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 583–84 (10th Cir. 1995)
(citation omitted). “De novo review requires the district court to consider relevant evidence of
record and not merely review the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Id. “However, neither 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) nor Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) requires the district court to make any specific
findings; the district court must merely conduct a de novo review of the record.” Garcia v. City of
Albuquerque, 232 F.3d 760, 766 (10th Cir. 2000).
“‘The filing of objections to a magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus
attention on those issues -- factual and legal -- that are at the heart of the parties' dispute.’” United
States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., with Bldgs., Appurtenances, Improvements, and Contents, 73
F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985)). “[A] party’s
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations must be both timely and specific
to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” United States
v. One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1060. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive
further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
II)

Background
Mr. Ullrich does not object to Judge Ritter’s discussion of the background of this case, and

this Court will not repeat those facts here except where essential to the analysis. Most basically,
Mr. Ullrich’s Complaint asserts that Defendants improperly disposed of his personal property and
the property of his parents’ estate. See Doc. 10. He does not state specific claims against
Defendants, but seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified damages. Id. at 8.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, Doc. 32, and memorandum in support,
Doc. 33, arguing inter alia that Mr. Ullrich’s claims fail as a matter of law based on the doctrines
of collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. Doc. 33 at 5. Defendants explain that, after his parents’
deaths, Mr. Ullrich filed a Petition for Probate Writ in New Mexico state court seeking an inventory

2

of his parents’ assets and asking the court to establish oversight over their estate(s). Id. at 6. The
state court entered a final order dismissing Mr. Ullrich’s Petition on March 19, 2013. Id. Mr.
Ullrich appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, which summarily disposed of his appeal
on September 23, 2016. Id. Defendants therefore argued that Mr. Ullrich’s claims in this case must
be dismissed.
Magistrate Judge Ritter entered his PFRD on January 11, 2019. See generally Doc. 63.
Pertinent here, Judge Ritter agreed that Mr. Ullrich’s claims in this case are barred by the doctrine
of collateral estoppel, by virtue of the findings of the state district court and New Mexico Court of
Appeals. See id. at 6. Specifically, Judge Ritter reasoned that, because the Court of Appeals found
that Mr. Ullrich’s parents’ estates had no assets to distribute and that, even if they did, Mr. Ullrich
was not entitled to any assets as he had been disinherited in his parents’ wills, his claims asserting
the negligent administration of his parents’ estates were barred. Id. at 8.
III)

The Objections
Mr. Ullrich timely objected to Judge Ritter’s PFRD on January 22, 2019. See generally

Doc. 64. In his objections Mr. Ullrich admits that he brought a case before the New Mexico
probate court and that a challenge to any such proceedings would be barred from review by this
Court under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Id. at 1. However, Mr. Ullrich argues that Judge
Ritter misunderstood the nature of his claims, which, he argues, sound in contract rather than
probate. Id. at 2. Mr. Ullrich refers to a contract that arose before his parents’ 1994 will and 2005
amended will, and asks this Court to “review the contract issues; existing prior to any probatestate matters; and outside of the state probate issues.” Id. at 4.

3

IV)

Analysis
Mr. Ullrich poses no specific objection to Judge Ritter’s rationale that his claims based on

the administration of his parents’ estate are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. In fact,
he appears to agree with this proposition. As such, the Court finds that any claims based on the
administration of Mr. Ullrich’s parents’ estate are barred based on the doctrine of collateral
estoppel.
Turning to Mr. Ullrich’s purported “contract claims” the Court finds that they are barred.
Mr. Ullrich does not articulate contract claims in his Complaint, see generally Doc. 10, but alleges
that they arise from contracts (not proven to be in writing) between himself and his parents. Upon
their deaths in 2009 and 2011, any unperformed obligations would have become claims against
the parents’ estate to be brought within the probate proceeding. As such, these claims are within
the scope of the collateral estoppel bar.
In addition, to the extent that any purported contract claims were based upon unwritten
contracts, they would be barred by New Mexico’s statute of limitations, because the latest date in
Mr. Ullrich’s Complaint is “2008-2011.” Doc. 10 at 7; See NMSA 1978, § 37-1-4 (“Those founded
upon accounts and unwritten contracts; those brought for injuries to property or for the conversion
of personal property or for relief upon the ground of fraud, and all other actions not herein
otherwise provided for and specified within four years.”). Therefore, any putative claim that Mr.
Ullrich has based upon an alleged unwritten contract between himself and Defendants is barred.
V)

Conclusion
The Court concludes that Mr. Ullrich’s objections must be overruled, for the reasons set

forth above.
Wherefore,
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Ullrich’s objections are overruled; the Court adopts
Magistrate Judge Ritter’s PFRD (Doc. 63); and, accordingly, grants Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 32).
SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
HON. JUDITH C. HERRERA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5