Eric Sorenson v. Joanne Sorenson, No. 22-1478 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
After (Decedent) died, two of his three adult children brought a pro se diversity action in the District of Minnesota against Defendant, Decedent’s second wife. They asserted multiple claims arising from Defendant’s alleged use of her power as Decedent’s attorney-in-fact to close two Certificates of Deposit and keep funds that Decedent intended would benefit his children. Defendant moved to dismiss, alleging lack of diversity jurisdiction because Decedent’s third child, like Defendant, is a resident of California and is an indispensable, non-diverse party. Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs’ incomplete assignment did not establish diversity jurisdiction. The district court determined it has diversity subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the FAC claims with prejudice because they fail to state a claim and Plaintiffs are not real parties in interest. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court found that the district court properly granted Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion because Plaintiffs’ FAC failed to state plausible claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and civil theft. Therefore, the court wrote it need not separately consider the district court’s alternative ruling that Plaintiffs are not “real parties in interest” under Rule 17(a). Further, the court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted in the FAC. The court explained it does not agree that additional claims regarding Defendant’s use of the CD proceeds after she was done acting as Attorney-in-Fact would necessarily have been futile. But without a proposed amended complaint to consider, the district court did not abuse its discretion by assuming they would be.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Melloy and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Civil Procedure. The deceased's third son was not a required party in this action by his siblings against their step-mother concerning the closing of certain CDs; as a result, the district court did not commit plain error in deciding it had diversity jurisdiction without considering 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1359 sua sponte; the district court did not err in determining that the claims in plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint were claims that belonged to decedent for actions taken before his death and to his estate for actions taken after his death; as a result, the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state plausible claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and civil theft; the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the First Amended Complaint with prejudice.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.