Grezak v. Grezak, 1:12-cv-04520

Background

Plaintiff Grazyna Grezak sues her daughter Evelina (fraud, conversion) and Evelina's psychiatrist Dr. Nancy Rubenstein (claims based on statements and an alleged office confrontation).
Procedural posture: Second Amended Complaint pending; Grazyna sought leave to amend again to add conversion claims valuing stolen heirlooms and property at over $100,000.
Evelina moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the $75,000 diversity amount; she also sought sanctions and an anti‑filing injunction.
Rubenstein moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (or 12(c)), arguing claims are time‑barred and that New York’s absolute privilege bars suits based on statements made in judicial proceedings.
The court allowed Grazyna to amend (finding the proposed complaint alleges > $75,000 against Evelina), denied Evelina’s jurisdictional and Rule 12(b)(6) motions, granted Rubenstein’s motion in full (dismissal with prejudice), and denied sanctions and counsel’s withdrawal motion (without prejudice).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Amount in controversy / subject-matter jurisdiction	Grazyna’s proposed amended complaint alleges > $100,000 in converted property, satisfying diversity amount	Evelina argued claims are time‑barred and/or the amount in controversy does not reach $75,000	Court granted leave to amend; alleged > $75,000 suffices to defeat Evelina’s 12(b)(1) motion (jurisdictional attack denied)
Motion to amend (reincorporate claims vs. abandonment)	Grazyna says omissions were not intentional (settlement communications, health impairments) and seeks to add conversion claims in good faith	Evelina contends abandonment, undue delay, possible bad faith	Court permitted amendment — no clear abandonment or bad-faith shown on the record; amendment granted reluctantly
Statute of limitations for fraud/identity-theft claims	Grazyna relies on discovery rule; some alleged fraudulent charges date to 2008 but some accounts (loan) discovered later (2012)	Evelina contends New York six-year rule doesn't apply; Pennsylvania (plaintiff’s residence) two‑year rule (with discovery tolling) bars claims	Court held borrowing statute applies; discovery rule may save claims. Dismissal on SOL grounds denied without prejudice because discovery/disputed facts preclude resolution on pleadings
Rubenstein: privilege and timeliness of claims arising from letter and office incident	Grazyna alleges Rubenstein’s letter to Family Court and office confrontation injured her reputation and caused distress	Rubenstein: April 2011 office encounter claims are time‑barred; October 2011 letter is absolutely privileged as statements made in judicial proceedings	Court converted part of motion to consider record and dismissed April 2011-related claims with prejudice (time‑barred). Claims based on the Family Court letter were dismissed with prejudice under New York’s absolute judicial‑proceeding privilege; overall claims against Rubenstein dismissed with prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galena, 472 F.3d 53 (2d Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)
Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y, 347 F.3d 394 (2d Cir.) (ad damnum clause creates rebuttable presumption re: amount in controversy)
Tongkook Am., Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781 (2d Cir.) (party contesting amount must show to a legal certainty that recovery cannot meet jurisdictional threshold)
Wolde‑Meskel v. Vocational Instruction Project Community Servs., Inc., 166 F.3d 59 (2d Cir.) (original jurisdiction over action when one claim meets amount-in-controversy requirement; treatment of severally vs. jointly liable defendants)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S.) (supplemental jurisdiction principles)
Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 43 (N.Y.) (elements and standard for conversion)
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (U.S.) (amount in controversy assessed at time of filing)