Carolyn Ellis v. Richard E. Warner, et al.

Summary

The district court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar claims for damages based on alleged forgery of a will, but dismissed the federal RICO and RICO conspiracy claims without prejudice for failure to plead predicate acts with particularity under Rule 9(b). It found the amount in controversy satisfied and that the probate exception did not bar most state-law claims, though it dismissed the constructive trust claim; it sustained claims for tortious interference with inheritance and under Florida’s CRCPA based on allegations of forgery and a pattern of similar conduct, but dismissed the FDUTPA claim because attorney conduct in drafting estate documents does not constitute “trade or commerce.”

Holdings

1. Rooker-Feldman does not bar jurisdiction where the plaintiff seeks monetary damages for independent tortious conduct and does not seek to overturn the state court judgment.
2. Plaintiff's allegations of mail and wire fraud failed to meet Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard because they did not specify the time, place, exact statements, or each defendant's role.
3. Plaintiff failed to allege that the proceeds were derived from 'specified unlawful activity' as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), and failed to allege intent to conceal.
4. A RICO conspiracy claim fails when the underlying substantive RICO claim is not viable.
5. The probate exception does not bar claims that seek monetary damages for tortious conduct and do not ask the court to dispose of property in the custody of a state probate court.
6. Plaintiff adequately alleged the crimes of forgery and uttering forged instruments, and alleged a pattern of criminal activity by including similar acts against non-party victims over a ten-year period, satisfying the more stringent CRCPA pattern requirement.
7. Attorney conduct in drafting estate documents and handling probate matters does not fall within the definition of 'trade or commerce' under FDUTPA.
8. Plaintiff sufficiently alleged the existence of an expectancy, intentional interference through tortious conduct (forgery, dissipation of property), causation, and damages; therefore, the claim survives dismissal.
9. The constructive trust claim seeks to impose a trust on property already distributed by the state probate court, thereby affecting the res; thus, the probate exception applies and the claim must be dismissed with prejudice.
10. Defendants failed to meet their burden of proving to a legal certainty that Plaintiff's claims do not exceed $75,000; considering treble damages under CRCPA and emotional distress damages, the jurisdictional amount is satisfied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
2. Whether the amount in controversy satisfies diversity jurisdiction.
3. Whether the probate exception bars jurisdiction.
4. Whether Plaintiff stated a viable RICO claim with sufficient predicate acts.
5. Whether Plaintiff stated a RICO conspiracy claim.
6. Whether Plaintiff stated a claim under Florida's CRCPA.
7. Whether Plaintiff stated a tortious interference with inheritance claim.
8. Whether Plaintiff stated a FDUTPA claim against the Law Firm and Richard.
9. Whether a constructive trust claim is barred by the probate exception.

Disposition

other