Kleeberg et al v. Eber et al
Filing
237
OPINION AND ORDER: For the above reasons, the Court respectfully directs that the Clerk of Court drop Canandaigua National Bank & Trust Company as a plaintiff and, instead, add it as a nominal intervening defendant in this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 6/18/2019) (ks)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
06/18/2019
DANIEL KLEEBERG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
16-CV-9517 (LAK) (KHP)
OPINION AND ORDER
-againstLESTER EBER, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 28, 2019, this Court granted Canandaigua National Bank & Trust Company’s
(“CNB”) motion to intervene. (Doc. No. 200.) It found, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(b)(1), that permissive intervention as a nominal defendant was appropriate
because CNB does not have a claim in this action in its own right. (Id.) On April 22, 2019, CNB
filed an intervenor complaint and joined as a plaintiff. (Doc. No. 206.) CNB’s intervention as a
plaintiff, however, raised the question of this Court’s continued subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1322 because CNB is a citizen of New York, as are Defendants Lester and
Wendy Eber and several of the corporate entity defendants.1
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the Court “may at any time, on just terms, add
or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The Rule also provides that “[m]isjoinder is not a ground for
dismissing an action.” Id. When assessing the proper classification of a party to a suit, “the
1
Plaintiff Daniel Kleeberg is a citizen of Florida, Plaintiff Lisa Stein is a citizen of New Jersey, and Plaintiff Audrey
Hays is a citizen of Colorado. (Doc. No. 222, 41.)
answer is to be found not in legal learning but in the realities of the record.” City of Indianapolis
v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York, 314 U.S. 63, 63 (1941) (re-aligning one of the
defendants in a diversity action as a plaintiff because its interests were aligned with those of
the original plaintiff). It is the Court’s duty to “‘arrange the parties according to their sides in
the dispute,’” so as to ensure that there exists an actual and sustainable controversy between
the parties. Id. (quoting Dawson v. Columbia Trust Co., 197 U.S. 178, 180 (1905)).
CNB originally was a defendant in this action. This Court dismissed CNB as a defendant,
on consent of all parties, when it entered into a settlement with Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 117.)
However, due to factual developments that arose after CNB’s dismissal, CNB is now facing
competing demands from Plaintiffs and the Eber Defendants. Specifically, on June 1, 2017, the
Monroe County Surrogate’s Court issued an Order for Judicial Settlement of Final Account of
Successor Co-Trustee, Resignation and Discharge of Co-Trustee and Termination of Trust (the
“Order”), which discharged CNB as co-trustee of the Trust. (Doc. No. 200, 1.) The Order also
instructed CNB to distribute the remaining Trust assets among the Trust beneficiaries, including
the remaining shares of Eber Bros. & Co. (“EB&C”) stock held by the Trust. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiffs
allege that they collectively hold a two-thirds interest in the remaining Trust assets and that
Lester Eber has a one-third interest. (Id. at 1.) Thus, Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to
two-thirds of the EB&C shares of stock previously held by the Trust.
On October 31 and December 17, 2018, Defendant Lester Eber contacted CNB, through
his counsel, and unilaterally requested that it transfer all of the remaining EB&C stock to him.
(Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs then directed CNB to ignore Lester’s request and threatened legal action
against CNB if it followed Lester’s directives. (Id.) CNB subsequently sought to intervene in this
2
action not to assert a claim on its own behalf, but to protect itself from dual liability arising
from Plaintiffs’ and Lester Eber’s competing claims to the EB&C stock. (Id. at 1-3.)
Given that CNB was originally named as a defendant and this Court granted its motion
to intervene as a defendant, and that CNB is not asserting any independent claim, the Court
finds that CNB was misjoined as a party plaintiff when it filed its Intervenor Complaint.
Accordingly, the Court hereby drops CNB as a plaintiff and adds CNB as a defendant pursuant to
its authority under Rule 21. It is clear that CNB’s presence as an intervening nominal defendant
for purposes of providing complete relief to Plaintiff does not destroy diversity. Also, based on
the realities of the record in this case, CNB’s extensive involvement in the actions giving rise to
Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, and its potential liability to Plaintiffs arising from the distribution of the
remaining shares of EB&C stock, the Court finds CNB is properly listed as an intervening
nominal defendant.
Here, there is no dispute that diversity jurisdiction existed at the commencement of this
action. Nor is there any dispute that CNB is a proper permissive intervenor. Furthermore,
there is no question that it is in the interest of judicial economy to resolve all of Plaintiffs’
claims in one action and permit CNB to be present as a nominal intervening defendant so that
the Court’s ultimate decision on the issues between the Plaintiffs and the other Defendants can
be effectuated without further action. Because this Court finds that CNB is more properly
aligned as an intervening nominal defendant, it does not reach the issue of whether CNB’s
intervention as a plaintiff, in fact, deprives the Court of diversity jurisdiction. See Wichita R. &
Light Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of the State of Kansas, 260 U.S. 48, 54 (1922) (“Jurisdiction
once acquired on . . . [diversity of citizenship] is not divested by a subsequent change in the
3
citizenship of the parties. Much less is such jurisdiction defeated by the intervention, by leave
of the court, of a party whose presence is not essential to a decision of the controversy
between the original parties.” (internal citations omitted)).
For the above reasons, the Court respectfully directs that the Clerk of Court drop
Canandaigua National Bank & Trust Company as a plaintiff and, instead, add it as a nominal
intervening defendant in this action.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:
New York, New York
June 18, 2019
______________________________
KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?