GIBSON-KENNEDY v. SLUTSKY
5:13-cv-04324
E.D. Pa.Jan 29, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Gibson-Kennedy sues on behalf of her allegedly incapacitated mother, Gibson.
- Gibson was declared totally incapacitated by a Montgomery County Orphans’ Court Final Decree (Apr. 17, 2013) and Doshi appointed guardian.
- Gibson allegedly had a reverse mortgage and the guardian and others allegedly mismanaged Gibson’s assets.
- Plaintiff and several banks/financial entities are named defendants in an Amended Complaint.
- Multiple defendants move to dismiss on various grounds, including lack of authority and lack of jurisdiction.
- Court grants motions to dismiss with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gibson-Kennedy may sue on behalf of Gibson | Gibson-Kennedy claims authority to sue for Gibson | Doshi as guardian; Gibson incapacitated; only guardian may sue | Yes; court lacks jurisdiction; cannot sue for Gibson |
| Whether Gibson-Kennedy may proceed pro se for Gibson | Pro se status should extend to representing Gibson | Guardian cannot proceed pro se for incapacitated non-attorney | Yes; court dismisses for lack of standing and jurisdiction |
| Whether Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies | Plaintiff seeks relief from ongoing state court guardianship proceedings | Rooker-Feldman bars this federal action | Yes; doctrine supports dismissal |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without leave to amend; jurisdictional basis | Amendment could cure deficiencies | Amendment futile due to lack of authority | Dismissal with prejudice; amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1957) (pleading standards before Twombly; notice pleading required)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (umns; plausibility pleading standard)
- Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1977) (framework for Rule 12(b)(1) challenges; jurisdictional review)
- Gordon v. E. Goshen Twp., 592 F. Supp. 2d 828 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (clarifies facial vs. factual challenges to jurisdiction)
- Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College of Pa., 937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991) (pro se rights, representation of incompetent individuals)