Peter Otoh v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association, et al.

In Navarro Savings Association v. Lee, this Court held that “a trustee is a real party to the controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction when he possesses certain customary powers to hold, manage, and dispose of assets for the benefit of others”. Navarro Savings Association v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 464, 100 S.Ct. 1779, 1783, 64 L.Ed.2d 425 (1980) The Fifth Circuit applied the Navarro’s rule in Bynane v. Bank ofN.Y. Mellon, and held that “Navarro’s rule is still good law. Where a trustee has been sued or files suit in her own name, the only preliminary question a court must answer is whether the party is an active trustee” Bynane v. Bank ofN.Y. Mellon, 866 F.3d 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2017) Here, the Eleventh Circuit did not apply the Navarro’s rule to the Respondent, who is similarly situated as the trustee in Bynane. Instead, the Eleventh Circuit determined that the Respondent is the real party to the controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction by inferring that the Trust in this case is a traditional trust. The Eleventh Circuit cited no evidence on the record to support its conclusion but the Eleventh cited this Court s holding in AmericoldRealty Tr. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., dll U.S. 378, 383 (2016) as its binding precedent; “when a trustee files a lawsuit or is sued in her own name, her citizenship is all that matters for diversity purposes. For a traditional trust, there is no need to determine its membership to determine diversity jurisdiction.” The questions presented are; (l) Whether the Eleventh Circuit was required to apply Navarro’s rule to the Respondent, before concluding that the Respondent is the real party to the controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. (2) Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred for concluding that the Respondent’s Trust is a traditional trust without citing support in the record