Estate of Jackson v. Ventas Realty, Ltd. Partnership
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108208
M.D. Fla.2011Background
- Jackson estate obtained $110 million Polk County circuit court default judgment against nursing home owners.
- Jackson sought Florida Section 56.29 supplemental proceeding to discover and reach assets held by third parties.
- Eleven of fourteen impleaded parties removed six actions to federal court, arguing removals were proper under diversity and amount.
- District court judges conducted several sua sponte transfers; case structure became six federal actions and three state proceedings.
- Court held Section 56.29 supplemental proceeding is not removable and remains in state court; removal jurisdiction did not exist.
- Jackson estate's Polk County judgment and execution context form the basis for the supplemental proceeding; federalization would encroach on state court execution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 56.29 supplemental proceeding is removable to federal court | Jackson argues not removable as ancillary proceeding | Removing parties argue diversity/original jurisdiction present | Not removable; state proceeding remains non-removable ancillary action. |
| Whether district court had original jurisdiction over a state post-judgment proceeding | Original jurisdiction absent since proceeding originates in state court | Diversity and amount satisfy removal prerequisites | No original jurisdiction; removal improper. |
| Whether the removals are proper satellite/ancillary to the state action | Proceedings are inseparable from state judgment | Proceedings are independent federal actions warranted by removal authorities | Satellite/ancillary status keeps proceedings in state court; not removable. |
| Fraudulent joinder challenge to non-diverse defendants | GTCR Fund VI, LP claim is asserted and plausible | Joinder of non-diverse parties should be fraudulent | Fraudulent joinder not proven; GTCR claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. McKenzie, 46 So.2d 184 (Fla.1950) (purpose of 56.29 supplemental proceedings)
- Reese v. Baker, 123 So. 3d (Fla.1929) (purpose to secure information for execution)
- Schwartz v. Capital City First Nat. Bank, 365 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (section 56.29 empowers circuit court enforcement of judgment)
- Regent Bank v. Woodcox, 636 So.2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (section 56.29 designed to avoid separate action)
- Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir.1998) (fraudulent joinder standard: no possibility to prove otherwise)
- Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422 (4th Cir.1999) (fraudulent joinder considerations)
- Richmond v. Allstate Ins. Co., 624 F.Supp. 235 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (comity and ancillary nature of state proceedings)