Lewis v. Parker
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126468
D.D.C.2014Background
- James P. Jarvis died in 2003; litigation over administration of his estate (the Jarvis Estate) began in probate court. Plaintiffs are heirs (including spouse LaCreasha Kennedy-Jarvis and children Lashawn Lewis and Derek Jarvis).
- Daryl S. Parker was appointed personal representative in 2004, negotiated a 2005 consent settlement with an heir (Greer Burriss), and later was removed by the D.C. Probate Court after a 2009 trial that found several fiduciary breaches but denied damages for many alleged lost assets as untimely/waived.
- C. Hope Brown became successor personal representative in 2009; she declined to pursue vacatur of the 2005 consent order, and closed the estate after mailing accountings to parties.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the Probate Court’s Clarification and Removal Orders in 2012, including rulings denying damages based on assets not listed in inventories and affirming Parker’s removal.
- Plaintiffs filed (twice) in federal court alleging breach of fiduciary duty (both defendants) and conversion (Parker); defendants moved to dismiss. The district court dismissed the federal suit with prejudice based on res judicata (claim and issue preclusion) as to Parker and on the applicable statute of repose / plaintiffs’ own pleadings as to Brown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parker’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims can be heard in federal court | Plaintiffs reassert probate claims (failure to marshal assets, improper consent order, etc.) seeking damages | Parker contends claims were litigated in D.C. Probate Court and Court of Appeals and are precluded by res judicata | Dismissed: claim and issue preclusion bar all breach claims against Parker |
| Whether Parker’s conversion claim can proceed | Plaintiffs allege Parker converted estate funds (fees/defense costs) | Parker/defendants: probate court already adjudicated allowance/approval of fees; issue preclusion applies | Dismissed: conversion claim precluded by prior probate rulings |
| Whether Brown breached fiduciary duties by not pursuing vacatur, failing accountings, or mismanaging closure | Plaintiffs allege Brown failed to provide accountings, keep apprised of appeals, and foreclosed vacatur, causing ~$11,000 loss | Brown: accountings were mailed; appeal disposition made vacatur unlikely; any fraud-based claim is time-barred by D.C. statute of repose | Dismissed: claims contradicted by record or time‑barred by statute of repose; no relief stated |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice or without | Plaintiffs seek another federal adjudication | Defendants: preclusion and repose make any amendment futile; prior identical filings and appeals | With prejudice: amendment would be futile given preclusion/repose and plaintiffs’ litigation history |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (probate exception to federal jurisdiction is limited)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual content permitting inference of liability)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (overview of claim and issue preclusion)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (res judicata bars claims/issues that were or could have been raised)
- Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313 (fair opportunity to litigate bars relitigation)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (distinguishing statutes of limitation and statutes of repose)
- Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245 (issue preclusion promotes finality of judgments)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (Rooker‑Feldman limits federal review of state-court judgments)