United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Lexington
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Judith Mickelson brought suit against numerous defendants
arising out of their alleged misconduct involving her
inheritance. (DE 1). Judith proceeds in this matter pro se.
before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by all
defendants. (DE 16; DE 17; and DE 19). Also before the Court
is Judith's motion for injunctive relief (DE 36), her
motion for immediate injunctive relief (DE 40), and her
motion to correct exhibits (DE 39). For the following
reasons, all of the defendants' motions to dismiss are
GRANTED, Judith's motion for injunctive relief and her
motion for immediate injunctive relief are DENIED, and her
motion to correct exhibits is DENIED as moot.
lengthy discussion of the underlying facts is not necessary
to dispose of the matters pending before the Court. Judith is
the daughter of Ralph and Shirley Mickelson and the sister to
Jerome, Julian, and Jonathon.
represents that Ralph's will and testament specifically
called for the creation of four trusts upon Shirley's
death-one named for each child-and Jerome was named as
co-trustee on each trust with the other children named as
co-trustees on their respective trust.All of the trusts
were to be equally funded.
complaint, Judith claims that the combined estates of Ralph
and Shirley were valued at more than $20 million and that
Jerome was named as the independent administrator and
executor of the parents' estates.
2011, Judith brought suit against Jerome in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for his
actions regarding the handling of her trust. The Northern
District of Illinois disposed of Judith's claims and
granted summary judgment to Jerome. See Mickelson v.
Mickelson, No. 11 C 5061, 2013 WL 3774004, at *1 (N.D.
Ill. July 18, 2013). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's decision, describing the case as
“a bitter dispute over the inheritances of Judy
Mickelson and her three brothers.” See Mickelson v.
Mickelson, 577 F. App'x 613 (7th Cir. 2014) (Mem).
has now brought suit against her three brothers, The
PrivateBank & Trust Co., and Lloyd Chatfield, who served
as her attorney during part of the earlier litigation. In her
complaint, Judith pleads seven counts: conversion,
conspiracy, fraud, defamation, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligence, and abuse of process.
defendants-the Mickelson brothers (DE 16), The PrivateBank
& Trust Co. (DE 17), and attorney Chatfield (DE 19)-have
filed motions to dismiss Judith's complaint with
Defendants' motions to dismiss
motions to dismiss cite three grounds by which the Court
could dispose of Judith's claims: (1) her claims are
barred by res judicata; (2) under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(3), the Eastern District of Kentucky is an
improper venue; and (3) under Rule 12(b)(6), Judith has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Court will address the defendants' improper venue
argument first, for if venue is improper in the Eastern
District of Kentucky, the Court “shall dismiss, or if
it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any
district or division in which it could have been
brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
threshold matter, the Court notes that Judith did not address
the issue of venue in her complaint. Nonetheless, the
defendants bear the burden to establish that venue in the
Eastern District of Kentucky is improper. See Means v.
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 836 F.3d 643, 652
n.7 (6th Cir. 2016).
and the question of whether it is wrong or improper, is
governed generally by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. See Atl.
Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. Of
Texas, 134 S.Ct. 568, 577 (2013). ...