Belanger v. Kazarosian, 1:17-cv-10087

Background

Plaintiffs Lisa Belanger and Devora Kaiser, daughters of Marvin Siegel, sued multiple parties (counsel, guardian, hospitals, care providers) seeking emergency equitable relief and declaratory judgments challenging estate/medical decisions and Probate Court orders. The complaint largely rehashed allegations from a prior related federal action that was dismissed.
Key factual dispute: Siegel was hospitalized in Nov–Dec 2016; plaintiffs allege the hospitalization and resulting care decisions were unwarranted and motivated by defendants’ desire to liquidate Siegel’s estate. Plaintiffs rely on their visits and observations of Siegel’s condition as contradicting defendants’ reports.
Procedural posture: Plaintiffs filed this action Jan 19, 2017 seeking TROs, preliminary injunctions, document production, independent medical exam, and declaratory relief. Defendants moved to dismiss. The Court considered the complaint and incorporated material from the prior dismissed action.
Court evaluated requests for injunctive relief under the usual four-factor preliminary-injunction standard and considered jurisdictional bars (Rooker–Feldman) for attacks on state probate orders.
Court found plaintiffs failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits, that the requested declaratory relief attacking Probate Court orders was barred by Rooker–Feldman, and that no private cause of action exists to obtain declaratory relief for alleged violations of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.
Outcome: Motions to dismiss granted; TROs and preliminary injunctions denied; declaratory relief dismissed; motion to strike plaintiffs’ submission granted in part (sealed); case dismissed in its entirety.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TROs / prelim injunctions should issue to preserve plaintiffs’ access to Siegel	Plaintiffs argued imminent irreparable harm and likelihood of success on merits, relying on overlap with the prior action	Defendants argued plaintiffs fail to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm; claims procedurally defective	Denied — plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success; injunctive relief denied
Whether federal court may grant declaratory relief invalidating Probate Court orders	Belanger asserted Probate orders violated due process and federal constitutional rights, seeking federal declaratory relief	Defendants invoked Rooker–Feldman and federal lack of jurisdiction to review state-court judgments	Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman
Whether plaintiffs can obtain a federal declaratory judgment that defendants violated Mass. Rules of Professional Conduct	Plaintiffs sought declaration that certain attorneys’ conduct violated professional rules and asked court to adjudicate misconduct	Defendants argued there is no private cause of action for violations of the professional rules; remedy is disciplinary process	Dismissed for failure to state a claim — no private right to enforce disciplinary rules in civil action
Whether plaintiffs’ pleading met federal pleading standards (fraud specificity, Rule 8/9/10) and whether certain materials should be stricken/sealed	Plaintiffs relied on many allegations and attached materials, including bar‑complaint correspondence	Defendants argued complaints lacked required particularity, contained immaterial/impertinent matter, and some filings violated confidentiality rules	Court noted pleading deficiencies (fraud not pleaded with Rule 9(b) particularity; other rule defects). Motion to strike granted in part — plaintiffs’ status filing sealed

Key Cases Cited

United States ex rel. Hutcheson v. Blackstone Med., Inc., 647 F.3d 377 (1st Cir. 2011) (pleading standard on motion to dismiss — accept well‑pleaded facts and draw inferences for plaintiff)
Rodi v. S. New Eng. Sch. of L., 389 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2004) (materials courts may consider on 12(b)(6) include exhibits and matters of judicial notice)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim; more than labels and conclusions)
A.G. ex rel. Maddox v. Elsevier, Inc., 732 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2013) (Twombly/Iqbal plausibility framework explained)
Sepulveda‑Villarini v. Dep’t of Educ. of P.R., 628 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (plausibility standard and two‑step analysis)
Ocasio‑Hernandez v. Fortuno‑Burset, 640 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (courts must not disregard properly pled factual allegations)
Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) (four‑factor test for preliminary injunction/TRO articulated)
Kilmowicz v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 192 F. Supp. 3d 251 (D. Mass. 2016) (likelihood of success requirement is fatal if unmet for TRO/PI requests)
Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review final state‑court judgments under Rooker–Feldman)
D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (Rooker–Feldman doctrine explained)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (limitations on lower federal court review of state court judgments)
Lancellotti v. Fay, 909 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1990) (district courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin state family/probate court orders)
Mangieri v. Mangieri, 226 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (federal probate exception and prudential reasons to avoid interfering in probate matters)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due process precedents cited by plaintiffs were in parental‑rights context; court found them inapposite)