Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2002/11/00-1457.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:58:05+00:00

Document:
Shamira Nicolas, dissatisfied with her mother's testamentary disposition, brought thirteen federal and state law claims against various defendants while the probate of her mother's estate was pending in state court. The district court dismissed the action in its entirety with a brief order based generally on principles of comity and judicial economy. The district court also dismissed the federal claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Ms. Nicolas appeals the district court's order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
The defendants -- Mr. Perkins, Ms. Vanatta, Mr. Crona, Mr. Gross, and Mr. Peterson ­ were involved in the execution of the trust or the state probate proceedings, or both.
In her complaint and amended complaint, Ms. Nicolas alleged the district court had jurisdiction over her various claims based on diversity of citizenship, federal question jurisdiction, or supplemental jurisdiction. All the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety and Ms. Nicolas appeals.
In its order dismissing Ms. Nicolas' claims, the district court found "Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants arise out of their conduct in the ... probate proceedings ..., and they may be adequately addressed in state court." The district court then determined "as a matter of comity and judicial economy, that [the claims] are inappropriate for review by this court."
its order dismissing the complaint in its entirety does not reveal which doctrine it relied upon and provides no reasoning for its decision. Given the lack of findings by the district court, we would be overstepping the limits of our review if we tried to make these findings in the first instance. Fox v. Maulding, 16 F.3d 1079, 1082 (10th Cir. 1994). Without findings by the district court, "'we are left with no means by which to judge the exercise of the court's discretion.'" Id. (quoting Griffen v. City of Oklahoma City, 3 F.3d 336, 340 (10th Cir. 1993)). Therefore, we must remand to the district court for more specific findings concerning: (1) which abstention doctrine it applied, if any; (2) which factors it considered in making its determination; and (3) the weight it gave to each of those factors.
The Third, Fifth, and Sixth claims for relief are federal claims brought under either the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or the Ku Klux Klan Act. The district court found Ms. Nicolas' allegations failed to state a viable claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b). We review the district court's dismissal of Ms. Nicolas' claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b) de novo. Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 906 (10th Cir. 2000); Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., 124 F.3d 1246, 1251 (10th Cir. 1997). We accept all well-pled allegations in the complaint as true and construe the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scott, 216 F.3d at 906.
Even taking all of Ms. Nicolas' well-pled allegations as true, the defendants' activities simply do not comport with the elements of those claims; in addition, the allegations were not pled with the particularity necessary to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). We affirm the district court's dismissal of the federal law claims.
The defendants claim diversity of citizenship is lacking for these claims or, if diversity does exist, the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction applies.
Because the district court's order does not address diversity jurisdiction, we must remand to the district court to consider in the first instance whether diversity of citizenship exists between the parties necessary to these claims. See Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d 1271, 1276-77 (10th Cir. 2001). If the district court finds diversity jurisdiction exists as to any of the state law claims for relief, it should then consider whether the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction applies and, if so, whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Ms. Nicolas' federal law claims and REVERSE the district court's dismissal of her state law claims. We REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order and judgment.
1. Although Ms. Vanatta attached them to her brief, neither document is part of the record on appeal. Ms. Vanatta filed two motions to append additional materials from the state probate proceedings. We granted her second motion August 30, 2002, and now grant the first motion, filed January 22, 2002.
2. The state probate court subsequently appointed a Special Administrator of Mrs. Pile's estate. However, upon stipulation of the parties, we dismissed the Special Administrator as a party to this appeal.
3. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817-20 (1976).
5. Ms. Nicolas is a citizen of New York and the named defendants are citizens of Colorado.

References: § 1291
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.