Chares Jackson, Sr. (deceased) et al v. Estate of AnnMarie Williams et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge James Orenstein. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Williamses' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and DENIES the Jacksons' motion to amend. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 7/8/2011. (fwd'd for jgm) (Lee, Tiffeny)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------------){
GEORGIA JACKSON, CHARLENE T. JACKSON,
PARIS M. JACKSON, SHIMIKA JACKSON,
CHARMANE JACKSON, and CHARLES
JACKSON, JR.,

ORDER
10-CV-1958 (NGG) (JO)

Plaintiffs,
-againstThe ESTATE OF ANNMARIE WILLIAMS, alkJa
ANNMARIE WILLIAMS-JACKSON, RICKY
WILLIAMS, RYAN WILLIAMS, SASHA
WILLIAMS, and SUE ANN WILLIAMS,
Defendants.

BROOKLYN OFFICE

-------------------------------------------------------------------){

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
On April 30, 20 I 0, Plaintiffs Georgia Jackson, Charlene T. Jackson, Paris M. Jackson,
Shimika Jackson, Charrnane Jackson, and Charles Jackson, Jr. (collectively, the "Jacksons") filed
suit against the estate of AnnMarie Williams, Ricky Williams, Ryan Williams, Sasha Williams,
and Sue Ann Williams (collectively, the "Williamses"), alleging that the court possessed
diversity jurisdiction over the action. (Compl. (Docket Entry# I), 1.) The action arose
following the 2009 death of Charles Jackson, Sr. ("Mr. Jackson"), the husband of Georgia
Jackson and the father of the other Jacksons. Qlh, 16.) The Complaint also alleges that the lateAnnMarie Williams, mother of the Williams children, claimed to be Mr. Jackson's wife. (Id.,
17.) To resolve disputes concerning the administration of Mr. Jackson's estate, the Jacksons'
Complaint seeks Georgia letters of administration and the annulment of any marriage between
Mr. Jackson and AnnMarie Williams. Qlh ~ 9-25.)
On September 7, 2010, the Williarnses moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction due to the "probate exception" to diversity jurisdiction, reaffirmed in
1

Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006). (Docket Entry# 7-1.) On September 23, 20IO, the
court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein for a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R"). (Docket Entry Sept. 23, 20IO.) On October IS, 20IO, the Jacksons
moved to amend their Complaint. (Docket Entry # Il.) On April 12, 20 II, Magistrate Judge
Orenstein recommended that the court grant the Williamses' motion to dismiss and deny the
Jacksons' motion to amend. (R&R (Docket Entry# 14}.) Any objections to the R&R were due
on April 29, 20Il. (Id.)
No party has objected to Judge Orenstein's R&R, and the time to do so has passed. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Having reviewed Judge Orenstein's thorough R&R, the court adopts it
in its entirety. See Porter v. Potter, 219 F. App'x I12 (2d Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the court

GRANTS the Williamses' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and DENIES
the Jacksons' motion to amend.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July g_,2011

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS
United States District Judge

2

v