Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01771/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01771-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Action for Interpleader

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nancy K. Duckett, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Dennis M. Enomoto, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01771-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

 Before the Court are Defendants Carol Severyn and Carol Severyn Trust 

Management Services’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 19), the 

United States’ Response (Doc. 20) and Defendant Dennis Enomoto’s Response (Doc. 

21). 

 In her last will and testament, the decedent, Miyoko Enomoto, devised one-third 

of her estate to a trust set up to benefit her son, Dennis Enomoto. The will appoints Carol 

Severyn Trust Management Services as trustee but gives Dennis Enomoto “the limited 

authority to request the removal of the Trustee and appoint a successor Trustee.” Doc. 1-

2 at 34. Almost a year and a half after the will was admitted to probate, Severyn mailed 

copies of a “Rejection of Appointment as Trustee” form to counsel for Plaintiff and for 

the United States on August 7, 2014. Two weeks later, she also sent the other parties a 

signed “Resignation” form announcing that she was resigning her position as trustee, 

thereby creating a vacancy in the trusteeship. A.R.S. § 14-10704. Dennis Enomoto 

subsequently retained Kurt Tittelbach, of Premier Fiduciary Services, to serve as trustee 

of the trust established by the decedent. Doc. 18 at 2. 

Case 2:14-cv-01771-NVW Document 22 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 With the appointment of Tittelbach, the moving Defendants no longer have any 

interest in this interpleader action. For that reason, Dennis Enomoto does not object to 

the instant Motion. Plaintiff argues in its Response that the Motion should be denied 

because the moving Defendants are “necessary parties to this action.” Doc. 19 at 2. That 

Response, however, was submitted to the Court on October 6, 2014, the same day Dennis 

Enomoto filed an Answer (Doc. 18) that announced the retention of Tittelbach. It 

appears Plaintiff was not aware, at the time it filed its Response, that a new trustee had 

been named to take the moving Defendants’ place. Regardless, now that Tittelbach has 

assumed the trusteeship, the moving Defendants can no longer be described as “necessary 

parties.” 

 The moving Defendants request an award of attorney’s fees and costs from 

Plaintiff. The United States objects to the Motion only to the extent that any attorney’s 

fees or costs would be awarded against the interpleaded funds. The moving Defendants 

do not cite any statute, rule or other source of law that would justify an award of fees or 

costs. Instead, they merely assert fees and costs are proper because “counsel for the 

Plaintiff knew or should have known that the [moving] Defendants had no adverse claim 

to the money referenced in the interpleader.” Doc. 14 at 3. Even assuming this is true, 

the moving Defendants have not carried their burden of demonstrating that it entitles 

them to fees or costs. Because there appears to be no basis for any such award, the Court 

will not order Plaintiff to pay attorney’s fees or costs. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Carol Severyn and Carol 

Severyn Trust Management Services’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is granted, to the 

extent that Defendants Carol Severyn and Carol Severyn Trust Management Services are 

dismissed as parties. 

 Dated this 29th day of October, 2014. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01771-NVW Document 22 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 2