# Fugedi v. United Rentals (North America) Inc.

> District Court, S.D. Texas · April 17, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10677595

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Texas
- **Decided:** April 17, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10677595

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 17, 2024
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
GALVESTON DIVISION

NICHOLAS FUGEDI, §
§
Plaintiff. §
§
V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-cv-00249
§
UNITED RENTALS (NORTH §
AMERICA) INC., et al., §
§
Defendants. §

OPINION AND ORDER
There are a number of motions pending before me in this property dispute.
See Dkts. 156, 158, 171, 189, 190, 203, 207, 256–57. I need only address:
(1) Steadfast Parties’1 Motion to Dismiss Fugedi’s Claims and Defenses for Lack of
Jurisdiction and Standing, and Fraud on the Court Under Inherent Powers
(“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt. 158); and (2) the recent, and duplicative,
Motions to Disqualify filed by Plaintiff Nicholas Fugedi (“Fugedi”) as Trustee of

1 Today the Steadfast Parties (“Defendants”) are Steadfast Funding, LLC; Initram, Inc.;
RJL Realty, LLC; Eternal Investments, LLC; Bruce Robinson; Dale Pilgeram as Trustee
of the Pilgeram Family Trust; Joseph C. Hibbard; Kornelia Peasley-Brown; Salvador
Ballesteros; Margaret M. Serrano-Foster, Trustee of the Margaret M. Serrano-Foster
Trust Dated 12/02/2005; Richard R. Metler, Trustee of the Richard R. Metler Revocable
Living Trust; James T. Smith, Trustee of the James T. Smith Trust; Liberty Trust
Company, LTD Custodian FBO Vincent Paul Mazzeo Jr. IRA; Joe Saenz; Patrick Grosse,
Trustee of the Grosse Family Trust Dated 12/31/2004; Eric Verhaeghe; Stephen K.
Zupanc; Liberty Trust Company, LTD Custodian FBO Adam K Hruby IRA #TC005383;
Vincent Investments, Inc., a/k/a Vincent Investments; Equity Trust Company Custodian
FBO Stephen (Steven) Krieger IRA; Julio Schnars; Joseph Dersham; Joyce Dersham;
Walter Kaffenberger; Christel Kaffenberger; Mike Berris (Berres); Jason Sun; Equity
Trust Company Custodian FBO Erica Ross-Krieger IRA; ELM 401k PSP; and Laurel Mead
and Edwin A. Mead as Trustees, ELM 401K PSP.
Fugedi also sued United Rentals (North America), Inc.; Contractors Access Equipment,
Inc.; and Mustang Rental Services, LLC, but these three defendants were dismissed
without prejudice on February 11, 2020. See Dkt. 58.
the Carb Pura Vida Trust (“the Trust”).2 See Dkts. 256–57. Because most of
Fugedi’s arguments for why I should disqualify myself are related to my
jurisdictional analysis, I have addressed both motions in this opinion.
Earlier in this litigation, the Fifth Circuit vacated a summary judgment I
issued. In remanding the case to me for further proceedings, one of the issues the
Fifth Circuit directed me to examine on remand was Defendants’ contention that
“the [T]rust [is] a sham concocted by Texas individuals, thereby destroying
diversity jurisdiction.” Fugedi as Tr. Carb Pura Vida Tr. v. Initram, Inc., No. 21-
40365, 2022 WL 3716198, at *5 (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2022) (“To the extent that
diversity jurisdiction is in question, remand is the appropriate remedy when our
jurisdiction remains unclear, but there is some reason to believe that jurisdiction
exists.” (quotations omitted)).
I have examined this issue and concluded—for reasons different and less
fantastical than those advanced by Defendants—that the record shows the Trust
and Fugedi’s appointment as its Trustee were made to manufacture diversity
jurisdiction where it would not otherwise exist in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1359. I
have also considered Fugedi’s Motions to Disqualify, and find them wholly without
merit. Accordingly, I DENY Fugedi’s Motions to Disqualify (Dkts. 256–57);
GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 158); and dismiss this matter
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2019, Fugedi3 filed the instant lawsuit against 32 defendants to
quiet title in property located at 829 Yale Street in Houston, Texas (“the Property”).
See Dkt. 1 at 2–3. In the initial complaint, Fugedi asserted that “[t]his Court has

2 The two disqualification motions were filed within a few hours of each other by different
lawyers representing Fugedi. Attached to Dkt. 257—without reference or explanation—is
a motion to recuse from an unrelated state court proceeding. The two motions are
otherwise identical, so I will treat them as one motion.
3 Unless otherwise stated, all references to Fugedi are to Fugedi in his capacity as Trustee
of the Carb Pura Vida Trust.
[diversity] jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. [§] 1332 as the claims are between citizens
of different states.” Id. at 7. For diversity purposes, Fugedi is a citizen of Michigan.4
At the time this suit was initiated, Defendants were residents of 15 states: Arizona,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico,
Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. See id. at 3–
6.5 On the face of Fugedi’s original complaint, this court has diversity jurisdiction
because Fugedi is not a citizen of any state of which the 32 original Defendants
were citizens. If Defendants are correct, however, that Fugedi is a “sham trustee,”
then I would be required to look beyond Fugedi’s citizenship to the citizenship of
the Trust’s beneficiary. On the day this lawsuit was filed, the sole beneficiary of the
Trust was Carb Pura Vida, LLC, whose sole member is Robert Elberger
(“Elberger”). See Dkt. 247 at 3. Elberger is a citizen of Texas for diversity purposes.
See id. So, if I find that Fugedi is a “sham trustee” or “straw fiduciary” and look
beyond Fugedi’s citizenship, then Elberger’s Texas citizenship would destroy
diversity jurisdiction.
Fugedi’s initial complaint was filed by Texas attorney J. Marc Hill (“Mr.
Hill”). Fugedi is now represented in this litigation by a number of other attorneys
too, including Johnie J. Patterson, II (“Mr. Patterson”). Fugedi is also advised by
Texas attorney Lloyd Kelley (“Mr. Kelley”) in administering the Trust, though not
represented by Mr. Kelley in this litigation. See Dkt. 251 at 30.
On July 22, 2019—10 days before filing this suit—the Trust was created,
Fugedi was appointed Trustee, and Fugedi purchased the Property from Bradley

4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 provides, in relevant part, that “a trustee of an express
trust” may sue in his own name “without joining the person for whose benefit the action
is brought.” FED. R. CIV. P. 17(a)(1)(E). Fugedi resides in Allen Park, Michigan. See Dkt.
251 at 9. Except for a one year spent in Hawaii, Fugedi has lived in Michigan his entire
life. See id.
5 Two of the three defendants dismissed on February 11, 2020 were the only residents of
Delaware. Thus, Defendants today are residents of 14 states: Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Parker (“Parker”), the authorized agent of 2017 Yale Development, LLC (“2017
Yale”). See Dkt. 177-3; Dkt. 177-4 at 5–6. Fugedi purchased the Property for
$275,000.00 cash, and executed an unsecured $2,500,000.00 note (“the Note”)
in favor of 2017 Yale. See Dkt. 177-4 at 6–7 (“We are aware that the $2,500,000.00
Note being executed today is an unsecured lien. No Deed of Trust will be filed of
record to secure payment of same.”). The $275,000.00 cash was supplied by
Elberger via a July 19, 2019 cashier’s check to the title company. See Dkt. 248-3.
As part of this transaction, David Alvarez (“Alvarez”)—the sole member of D&A
Alvarez Group, LLC (“D&A Alvarez”)—executed a Release of Lien against the
Property. See Dkt. 177-4 at 28–30. Alvarez received $251,301.00 of the
$275,000.00 that Elberger paid for the Property. See id. at 32; see also Dkt. 93 at
3 n.2. The remaining $23,699.00 went to closing costs. See Dkt. 177-4 at 32.
At the same time—in a related state court proceeding before Judge Beau
Miller in the 190th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas (Cause No. 2016-
64847)—2017 Yale, Alvarez, and D&A Alvarez were engaged in litigation with the
Steadfast Parties. 2017 Yale and Alvarez were represented in Cause No. 2016-
64847 by Mr. Kelley. See Dkt. 177-2 at 10, 12–13. In July 2019, Judge Miller “ruled
as a matter of law that [2017] Yale and D&A Alvarez defaulted on their loans and
thus breached the loan documents” between themselves and the Steadfast Parties.
2017 Yale Dev., LLC v. Steadfast Funding, LLC, No. 01-20-00027-cv, 2023 WL
3184028, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 2, 2023, pet. denied); see also
Dkt. 16-7 (Final Judgment in Cause No. 2016-64847); Dkt. 161-20 (certified copy
of Final Judgment in Cause No. 2016-64847).6
The day after Fugedi purchased the Property from 2017 Yale and Alvarez
executed the Release of Lien against the Property, Judge Miller commenced a jury
trial in Cause No. 2016-64847 on the Steadfast Parties’ damages for 2017 Yale’s

6 The Texas Court of Appeals has summarized the history of the Property and the
relationship between 2017 Yale, D&A Alvarez, and the Steadfast Parties leading up to said
jury trial. See 2017 Yale Dev., LLC, 2023 WL 3184028, at *1–7.
and D&A Alvarez’s breach of the loan documents and the Steadfast Parties’
attorney’s fees. See Dkt. 16-7 at 1 (“On the 23rd day of July, 2019, this case came on
for trial.”). Ultimately, Judge Miller ordered that the Steadfast Parties “recover
from [2017] Yale and D&A Alvarez a total of $8,355,104.89.” 2017 Yale Dev., LLC,
2023 WL 3184028, at *7; see also Dkt. 16-8 at 3; Dkt. 16-10 at 3. According to the
Declaration of Net Worth filed by Parker following the judgment, 2017 Yale had no
substantial assets other than the Property, which was transferred before the final
judgment was issued. See Dkt. 16-8 at 2–7.
I take judicial notice of this background information—and of the Final
Judgment in Cause No. 2016-64847—not for the truth of the matters asserted or
for any preclusive purpose, but solely to establish that these issues were being
litigated in Texas state court at the time Fugedi purchased the Property from 2017
Yale and Alvarez executed the Release of Lien.
Defendants contend, among a great many other things, that the Trust was
improperly or collusively created to invoke this court’s diversity jurisdiction. See
Dkt. 158 at 19. For the reasons discussed below, I agree and find that Fugedi is a
straw fiduciary, and that Elberger’s Texas citizenship controls for diversity
purposes, meaning this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
A. LEGAL STANDARD
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent jurisdiction
conferred by statute, lack the power to adjudicate claims.” Stockman v. Fed.
Election Comm’n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998). “Federal courts, both trial and
appellate, have a continuing obligation to examine the basis for their jurisdiction.
The issue may be raised by parties, or by the court sua sponte, at any time.” MCG,
Inc. v. Great W. Energy Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990).
“A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any
party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made . . . to
invoke the jurisdiction of such court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1359. “The purpose of [§ 1359 is]
to prevent agreements whose primary aim [is] to vest the court with a jurisdiction
it had not formerly enjoyed.” O’Brien v. AVCO Corp., 425 F.2d 1030, 1034 (2d Cir.
1969). “Accordingly, the legality of a relationship for state law purposes does not
control its effect on federal jurisdiction.” Id. Thus, “an assignment could be
improperly or collusively made even though binding under state law.” Kramer v.
Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823, 829 (1969) (quotation omitted)).
“The question of whether a device is so lacking in substance as to be
improper and collusive under Section 1359 is a question of fact.” Bass v. Tex.
Power & Light Co., 432 F.2d 763, 766–67 (5th Cir. 1970). The Fifth Circuit has held
that motive “is a determinative factor under § 1359.” Bianca v. Parke-Davis
Pharm. Div. of Warner-Lambert Co., 723 F.2d 392, 395 (5th Cir. 1984).
Factors to be considered by the district court in making a § 1359
inquiry include: [1] the relationship of the representative to the party
represented; [2] the scope of the representative’s powers and duties;
[3] any special capacity or experience which the representative may
possess with respect to the purpose of his appointment; [4] whether
there exists a nondiverse individual who might more normally be
expected to represent the interests at stake; [5] whether those seeking
the appointment of the representative express any particular reasons
for selecting an out-of-state person; and [6] whether, apart from the
appointment of an out-of-state representative, the suit is one wholly
local in nature.
Id. (quotation omitted). Other courts have considered:
(1) whether and to what extent the assignee has a preexisting financial
interest, (2) whether adequate consideration exchanged hands,
(3) whether the underlying motivation of the assignment involved a
sufficiently compelling business purpose that the assignment would
have been made absent the purpose of gaining a federal forum,
(4) whether the timing of the assignment supports an inference that
the assignment was not entered into to create diversity, (5) whether
the assignor has transferred all interest in the litigation, and
(6) whether the assignee is financing the litigation.
Reinhart Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Excel Directional Techs., LLC, 463 F. Supp. 2d 1240,
1245 (D. Colo. 2006) (quotation omitted).
“When a party files a motion to dismiss alleging a factual attack that
jurisdiction has been established in violation of Section 1359, the party seeking to
invoke federal jurisdiction carries the burden to prove its existence by a
preponderance of the evidence.” Gulf Fleet Tiger Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Thoma-Sea
Ship Builders, L.L.C., 282 F.R.D. 146, 155 (E.D. La. 2012).
[T]here is substantial authority that the trial court is free to weigh the
evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the
case. In short, no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff’s
allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not
preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of
jurisdictional claims. . . . It is elementary that a district court has
broader power to decide its own right to hear the case than it has when
the merits of the case are reached. Jurisdictional issues are for the
court—not a jury—to decide, whether they hinge on legal or factual
determinations. The unique power of district courts to make factual
findings which are decisive of jurisdiction is, therefore, not disputed.
This means that the district court is not limited to an inquiry into
undisputed facts. It may hear conflicting written and oral evidence
and decide for itself the factual issues which determine jurisdiction.
Thus, . . . [the Fifth Circuit has] upheld a dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction which was based in part on the district court’s
determination—on the basis of a written record and the testimony of
all parties—of factual issues that were in dispute.
Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981) (cleaned up).
B. ANALYSIS
Before analyzing the facts of this case, I must address Fugedi’s contention
that “[t]here is no precedent for the application of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1359 to a trust and
a trustee who purchases all of the interest in real property.” Dkt. 254 at 2.
Fugedi makes much of Rule 17, arguing that “there is only one person that is
the real party in interest that has standing to bring a claim in regard to a trust and
that is the trustee.” Id. at 3. Yet, Fugedi overlooks that executors, administrators,
and guardians are also listed as real parties in interest under Rule 17. See FED. R.
CIV. P. 17(a)(1)(A)–(C). Section 1359 was frequently applied against such
appointed fiduciaries prior to the 1988 amendment of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.7 See
Bianca, 723 F.2d at 394 (“We hold that an administratrix’s citizenship will govern
the diversity inquiry unless the administratrix was named with the motive of
creating diversity where it would not otherwise exist.”); White v. Lee Marine Corp.,
434 F.2d 1096, 1100 (5th Cir. 1970) (“Despite appellants’ insistence that there were
legitimate reasons for appointing Mr. Baggett [as guardian and administrator],
Mrs. White and her family do not have sufficient substantive ties to Mr. Baggett or
the state of Louisiana to support federal diversity jurisdiction. Allowing this suit to
be brought in federal court would not advance any of the functions diversity
jurisdiction was designed to serve.”); Bass, 432 F.2d at 764 (finding estate’s
administrator was appointed solely to create diversity). Pre-1988 jurisprudence
“presumably continues to be applicable to those appointments not covered by the
express language of the amendment to Section 1332(c)(2).” 13F Charles Alan
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3640 (3d ed. 2023).
Fugedi offers no authority showing why § 1359 should not also be applied to
a trustee’s appointment, particularly when the plain language of the statute
contemplates collusive devices “by assignment or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1359

7 As noted in one treatise:
In the past, one common method of ‘manufacturing’ diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction was to appoint a representative, such as a guardian or an
administrator, whose citizenship differed from that of the potential
defendant, to prosecute the action. . . . The utility of that strategy has been
reduced significantly, however, because in 1988, Congress eliminated the
device of manufacturing diversity in certain contexts by appointing a
representative from a jurisdiction other than that of the plaintiff’s state
citizenship.
13F Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3640 (3d ed.
2023). Section 1332 now provides that
the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a
citizen only of the same State as the decedent, and the legal representative
of an infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same
State as the infant or incompetent.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).
(emphasis added). Fugedi’s best cases are inapplicable ones in which courts
declined to apply § 1359 to an assignment that was made to destroy diversity, as
opposed to create it. See HDNet MMA 2008 LLC v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-0442,
2008 WL 958067, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2008) (“[T]here is no statute that
expressly inhibits the use of devices to defeat federal jurisdiction.”); Amalgamated
Gadget, L.P. v. MAck, No. 3:03-cv-0952, 2004 WL 549483 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 10,
2004); Ivanhoe Leasing Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 791 F. Supp. 665, 667 (S.D. Tex.
1992) (“By statute, a party cannot create diversity by an assignment of claim. 28
U.S.C. § 1359. There is, however, no corollary statute that prohibits an assignment
to destroy diversity.”).
The Supreme Court has expressly contemplated that an “allegation of sham
or collusion” warrants looking beyond the trustee’s citizenship. See Navarro Sav.
Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 465 (1980) (in affirming judgment that trustees could
invoke diversity jurisdiction on the basis of their own citizenship, the Supreme
Court, citing § 1359, noted that, in the case before it, “[t]here is no allegation of
sham or collusion”). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit—having determined that Fugedi
holds a valid deed to the Property—remanded this case to me to examine that exact
issue. See Fugedi, 2022 WL 3716198, at *5. Plenty of other courts have also
contemplated the application of, or actually applied, § 1359 to a trust’s creation or
a trustee’s appointment. See Grede v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 598 F.3d 899, 900–01
(7th Cir. 2010) (“We treat an assignment as collusive when its sole function is to
shift litigation from state to federal court. . . . Assignment to a trust could be
designed to take advantage of the rule that a trust’s citizenship is that of the trustee,
rather than the beneficiaries, for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).”); McSparran
v. Weist, 402 F.2d 867, 874–75 (3d Cir. 1968) (discussing trustees alongside other
types of fiduciaries and holding that “[w]hile [§ 1359] does not ban the
appointment of nonresident fiduciaries, the artificial selection of a straw
representative who has no duty or function except to offer the use of his citizenship
to create diversity in contemplated litigation is a violation of its provisions”);
Owens, Tr. of Wells Irrevocable Tr. v. Wells, No. 2:20-cv-00039, 2021 WL
836729, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 2021) (contemplating application of § 1359 to a
trust); Minogue v. Modell, No. 1:06-cv-286, 2006 WL 1704932, at *10 (N.D. Ohio
June 16, 2006) (acknowledging that the “state of the law post-Kramer” is “that the
collusive or improper joinder doctrine of Kramer applies to transfers to trustees
and other representatives”); Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. El Comandante Cap.
Corp., 332 F. Supp. 2d 448 (D.P.R. 2004) (examining the validity of a trustee’s
appointment under § 1359).
For example, the Wells Fargo court concluded that it had jurisdiction not
because § 1359 was inapplicable, but because “notwithstanding the ‘red flag’ of
temporal proximity between the removal of [the nondiverse] trustee, the
appointment of [the diverse] trustee and the filing of the instant complaint,” there
were “ample bona fide business and practical considerations” for the appointment.
Id. at 456. “Moreover, the uncontested evidence in the record [showed] that the
creation of diversity of citizenship was neither a primary nor a substantial reason
for the appointment of [the diverse] trustee.” Id. It is true that “in cases where a
claimant makes a bona fide, absolute transfer of its claims to a diverse citizen for
the purpose of invoking federal jurisdiction,” the “[Supreme] Court has held that
federal jurisdiction is proper, and the motives of the transfer are irrelevant.”
Ambrosia Coal & Constr. Co. v. Pages Morales, 482 F.3d 1309, 1315 (11th Cir.
2007) (citing Kramer, 394 U.S. at 828 n.9). But two things distinguish that line of
cases from the facts here.
First, there is evidence that the transfer from 2017 Yale to the Trust was not
a bona fide transfer. “In evaluating the nature and validity of absolute transfers,
the Supreme Court has . . . examined the consideration exchanged for the assigned
claim.” Ambrosia Coal & Const. Co., 482 F.3d at 1315. The closing documents show
that 2017 Yale did not receive any of the $275,000.00. That money went primarily,
and directly, from the title company to Alvarez, with the remainder going to closing
costs. See Dkt. 248-1 at 32; 248-4 at 1. Fugedi executed a $2,500,000.00 note in
favor of 2017 Yale as consideration for the Property, but the Note is unsecured and
not a single payment has been made on it. See Dkt. 251 at 25. Thus, 2017 Yale has
yet to receive anything beyond the lien release for the Property, which Fugedi
values “[b]etween two and three million unfinished.” Dkt. 246-1 at 242.
Second, and more importantly, but for Elberger’s orchestrating the Trust’s
purchase of the Property—as opposed to Elberger’s purchase of the Property
himself, or through Carb Pura Vida, LLC—Elberger’s Texas citizenship would have
prevented this case from being brought in federal court. After all, Fugedi did not
negotiate the purchase of the Property. See Dkt. 251 at 23. It was Elberger, a Texas
citizen, who supplied the funds to purchase the Property before the Trust was even
created. Elberger paid $275,000.00 to the title company via a cashier’s check that
was cut on July 19, 2019, three days before the Trust was created and before Fugedi
was appointed Trustee. See Dkt. 248-3. Thus, what matters is not so much the bona
fides of the purchase of the Property, but why the Trust was created and why
Elberger arranged for the Trust to purchase the Property.
Under § 1359, it is appropriate for me to examine the motive behind the
Trust’s creation and Fugedi’s appointment as Trustee to determine whether they
are collusive devices to manufacture diversity jurisdiction where it would not
otherwise exist. In doing so, I look to the six factors articulated in Bianca.
1. Fugedi’s Relationship to Elberger
Fugedi first met Elberger through Mr. Kelley, “a long-time family friend,” at
a dinner party in June 2019 that Fugedi believes was arranged by Mr. Kelley. Dkt.
251 at 14. When Fugedi and Elberger met again a few weeks later at Elberger’s
home, Mr. Kelley was there, too. See Dkt. 251 at 19. It was then that Elberger—
having met Fugedi only once a few weeks before—presented the trusteeship to
Fugedi as an “opportunity” for Fugedi. Dkt. 251 at 17. On July 22, 2019, less than
two months after Elberger and Fugedi met, the Trust was executed and Fugedi
became Trustee.
Fugedi contends that he “was asked to be the trustee after meeting Elberger
and developing a relationship with him.” Dkt. 254 at 6. Yet, much like the
administrator in Pistone v. Romano, whose appointment was found collusive,
Fugedi “was unknown” to Elberger prior to Mr. Kelley’s introduction. 349 F. Supp.
293, 295 (E.D. Pa. 1972) (considering the administrator’s lack of “special expertise
in any matters that might be involved in this litigation” and the “wholly local”
nature of the suit as factors that suggested manufactured diversity jurisdiction).
Elberger asked Fugedi to become the Trustee having met Fugedi only twice in as
many months, and with Mr. Kelley present at both meetings.
Mr. Kelley is a lawyer for the Trust. See id. at 30. Mr. Kelley was 2017 Yale’s
and Alvarez’s attorney in Cause No. 2016-64847. See Dkt. 177-2 at 10, 12–13. Mr.
Kelley represented 2017 Yale and Alvarez at the time the Trust purchased the
Property and Alvarez executed the Release of Lien. The Trust purchased the
Property from 2017 Yale on the eve of the jury trial in Cause No. 2016-64847, to
which 2017 Yale and Alvarez were parties. Judge Miller had already determined as
a matter of law that 2017 Yale and Alvarez were liable to the Steadfast Defendants—
the only question was the extent of their liability. The Property was 2017 Yale’s only
substantial asset. See Dkt. 16-8 at 2–7. That Mr. Kelley represented 2017 Yale and
Alvarez at the same time he introduced Fugedi to Elberger; that Elberger arranged
for the purchase of the Property from 2017 Yale following the judgment against it
and on the eve of the trial to determine 2017 Yale’s liability; and that Elberger then
appointed Fugedi as Trustee suggest that Fugedi is simply a strawman.
2. The Scope of Fugedi’s Power and Duties
The Trust Agreement facially grants Fugedi a wide range of powers. See Dkt.
177-3 at 4–7. Yet, the evidence suggests that Fugedi simply does what his attorneys
tell him to do. For example, Fugedi testified that he believes Mr. Kelley “pay[s]
some of the lawyers [for the Trust] out of his pocket.” Dkt. 251 at 31. Mr. Patterson
objected that Fugedi’s testimony as to how the Trust’s lawyers are paid assumes
facts not in evidence. That is a valid objection, but how the Trust’s lawyers are paid
is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that Fugedi believes Mr. Kelley pays
some of the Trust’s other attorneys himself, and that Fugedi seemed otherwise
ignorant as to how some attorneys are paid. Fugedi’s own subjective belief
regarding Mr. Kelley’s involvement in the Trust is relevant to the question of who
really controls the Trust. This testimony suggests that it is not Fugedi.
Fugedi also does not know why no payment has been made on the Note,
testifying: “My understanding is that we were not going to pay on the [N]ote
because it was – the case was still tied up in litigation.” Id. at 25. Yet, Fugedi could
not tell me why litigation excused the Trust from paying on the $2,500,000.00
note that it executed in favor of 2017 Yale, in what should have been an arm’s
length transaction. Fugedi believes the $2,500,000.00 note that he executed on
the Trust’s behalf in favor of 2017 Yale is a secured note. See id. at 24. It is not. See
Dkt. 177-4 at 6–7 (“We are aware that the $2,500,000.00 Note being executed
today is an unsecured lien. No Deed of Trust will be filed of record to secure
payment of same.”).8 Fugedi’s testimony suggests that the Trust’s lawyers do far
more than simply advise Fugedi on how to manage the Trust. Fugedi’s testimony
suggests that the Trust’s lawyers are in fact the ones managing the Trust, and that
he blindly acquiesces to their direction. To the extent Fugedi testified otherwise, I
find that testimony “incredible.” See Nat’l Fitness Holdings, Inc. v. Grand View
Corp. Ctr., LLC, 749 F.3d 1202, 1207 (10th Cir. 2014) (finding that district court’s
credibility determination regarding the motive for the plaintiff’s assignment was
not clearly erroneous because there was “ample support in the record for that
finding”).

8 In a letter filed 15 days after the hearing and 6 days after Fugedi’s post-hearing briefing,
Fugedi’s counsel makes two asides regarding vendor’s liens that were not raised during
the hearing or in Fugedi’s post-hearing briefing. See Dkt. 258 at 6 (“Judge Edison doesn’t
know what a vendor’s lien is and how it applies to a money-purchase note.”); id. at 9
(“Judge Edison referenced the ‘lack of security’ without even considering security by way
of a vendor’s lien.”). These arguments miss the mark. Whether the note is secured or
unsecured is not nearly as important as the fact that no money has been paid on the Note
in nearly five years and Fugedi does not know why.
It bears repeating that Mr. Kelley is not just the Trust’s lawyer. At the time
Fugedi purchased the Property from 2017 Yale, and at the time this litigation was
instituted, Mr. Kelley was also representing 2017 Yale and Alvarez. See Dkt. 177-2
at 10, 12–13. But Mr. Kelley is not the only Trust lawyer who represents or has
represented a party with an interest in the Property. Mr. Hill represented Brad
Parker in Steadfast Funding, LLC. v. Jetall Cos., Cause No. 2019-23950 (190th
Jud. Dist. Ct.). See Dkt. 16 at 9. Recall that Parker was the authorized agent of 2017
Yale from whom Fugedi purchased the Property. Mr. Kelley recommended Mr. Hill
to Fugedi. See Dkt. 251 at 30–31. Thus, I also find incredible Fugedi’s testimony
that, to the best of his knowledge, there was no threatened litigation regarding the
Property when it was purchased. See Dkt. 251 at 52. This seems improbable—if not
impossible—given that not one, but two, of the Trust’s lawyers were representing
or had represented other parties with interests in the Property in litigation
concerning the Property in proceedings in Texas state court. These facts suggest
collusion to manufacture diversity jurisdiction where it would not otherwise exist.
3. Fugedi Has No Special Experience
Fugedi’s college degree program included a major in art education and a
minor in painting. See Dkt. 251 at 10. He has been teaching art ever since he
graduated college. See id. at 10–11. He had never served as a trustee before
becoming the Trustee of the Carb Pura Vida Trust. See id. at 11. He has never
developed real estate and has never had any business dealings in Texas. See id. By
his own admission, he had no experience that made him particularly qualified to
serve as the Trustee. See id. at 19. This factor clearly suggests manufactured
jurisdiction. See Renner v. Vitcov, 339 F. Supp. 1020, 1022 (E.D. Pa. 1972) (finding
manufactured diversity jurisdiction where “the administrator, as a salesman,
admitted that he has never been an executor or administrator before, he has never
been a party to a personal injury suit, he has had no experience in personal injury
litigation, and he has little knowledge of legal proceedings”).
4. A Nondiverse Individual Would More Normally Be
Expected to Represent the Interests at Stake
Fugedi argues he “cannot speculate as to whether there is a nondiverse
individual that might more normally be expected to represent the interests at
stake.” Dkt. 254 at 7. He merely notes that “[n]o other potential ‘nondiverse
individuals’ were identified.” Id. But no one else had a burden to identify a
nondiverse individual. The timing of the Property’s purchase alone is enough to
raise a factual attack on Fugedi’s appointment. Fugedi, “as the party seeking to
invoke jurisdiction, has the burden of proving the facts necessary to sustain
jurisdiction.” Harvey Const. Co. v. Robertson-CECO Corp., 10 F.3d 300, 303 (5th
Cir. 1994). At a minimum, one would expect a trustee whose sole duty is to manage
the development of a multi-million-dollar real estate project in Houston, Texas to
be closer than 1,300 miles away to the property being developed, and have at least
some experience in developing real estate. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of
finding collusive diversity jurisdiction.
5. The Particular Reasons for Selecting an Out-of-State
Trustee
Fugedi’s counsel are of the firm conviction that the motivation behind his
appointment is not relevant. See Dkt. 254 at 3 n.4; Dkt. 256 at 11; Dkt. 259 at 12.
As discussed above, it very much is relevant, and Fugedi has the “burden of proving
the facts necessary to sustain jurisdiction.” Harvey Const. Co., 10 F.3d at 303.
Mr. Hill takes issue with my asking Fugedi why Elberger selected Fugedi as
Trustee, arguing that Fugedi would only be speculating. That is a fair point, but it,
too, misses the mark. In the face of his burden—and the timing of the Property’s
purchase and his own lack of experience as a Trustee or developing real estate—
the best Fugedi can come up with is speculation “that the Trust and the property
were seen as an opportunity for Fugedi to learn more about real estate ownership
and development.” Dkt. 254 at 6 (emphasis added). However true or altruistic that
may be, it is not normal to select a trustee—a fiduciary—for the trustee’s benefit.
See FIDUCIARY, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009) (“A person who is required
to act for the benefit of another person on all matters within the scope of their
relationship.”). While there is certainly no law forbidding a settlor from selecting
a trustee for the trustee’s own edification, there is also no law requiring me to credit
“the trustee’s edification” as a reason that weighs against finding manufactured
diversity jurisdiction. Thus, this factor also weighs in favor of finding collusive
diversity jurisdiction.
6. This Suit Is One Wholly Local in Nature
This suit concerns a piece of Texas real estate that, until Fugedi purchased
it, was owned by Texas citizens who were represented by Texas lawyers in Texas
state court proceedings. Elberger—the individual who (presumably) negotiated the
purchase of the Property,9 who supplied the funds for the purchase, who created
the Trust, who directed Fugedi to purchase the Property, and for whose benefit the
Property is held—is also a Texas citizen. The only thing that is not local about this
controversy is the fact that 24 of the 32 Defendants in this case are citizens of states
other than Texas (or Michigan). Yet, all 32 Defendants were happily litigating in
state court, in multiple proceedings. See Dkt. 16-3; Dkt. 16-5; Dkt. 16-6. Indeed,
“every claim brought in this case could have been litigated in front of the state
court. Texas state courts are courts of general jurisdiction.” Wilson v. First Cmty.
Credit Untion, No. 4:15-cv-3178, 2017 WL 6939088, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 29,
2017).10 Thus, other than the diversity jurisdiction that has been manufactured
here, this is a quintessentially local suit.

9 There is no evidence in the record establishing that Elberger—as opposed to Kelley or
someone else—negotiated the purchase of the Property. The important point is that it was
not Fugedi. See Dkt. 251 at 23.
10 It is absurd for Fugedi to suggest that application of 28 U.S.C. § 1359 would leave him
in a “wilderness of mirrors in which neither Petitioner nor its beneficiaries can access a
court to clear title to its property.” Dkt. 256 at 11. Texas state court judges, including the
previously mentioned Judge Beau Miller, are more than capable of handling in Texas state
court a Texas state law claim to quiet title to a Texas property.
7. Other Factors
Further analysis is not necessary, as all six of the Bianca factors weigh in
favor of finding that diversity jurisdiction was collusively manufactured. Yet,
because additional factors that other courts have considered also weigh in favor of
finding collusive diversity jurisdiction, I will briefly discuss them. See Reinhart Oil
& Gas, Inc., 463 F. Supp. 2d at 1245.
In some courts, a “beneficial interest in the outcome of the litigation” will
“ke[ep] the appointment from being a sham transaction condemned by § 1359.”
Martinez v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 802 F.2d 1275, 1279 (10th Cir. 1986). Fugedi has
no beneficial interest here. He was paid $5,000 up front, and—despite the trust
agreement clearly providing for reasonable compensation—he has not been paid
anything beyond that initial $5,000, and does not know what other compensation
he will ultimately receive. See Dkt. 251 at 28–29, 54–55. While this factor does not
compel a finding that Fugedi’s appointment is in violation of § 1359, it “requires
inquiry into the motive for the appointment.” Martinez, 802 F.2d at 1279.
As discussed above, the consideration exchanged for the Property was
questionable. Because the Trust has paid nothing on the Note, 2017 Yale has thus
far received nothing more than the release of a lien for a property valued at two-to
three-million dollars.
The underlying motivation for appointing Fugedi was not a compelling
business reason. Fugedi’s own contention is that he was appointed Trustee because
it was an opportunity for him—the fiduciary—“to learn more about real estate
ownership and development.” Dkt. 254 at 6. This is a reason, but it is not a
compelling business reason.
The timing of the Property’s transfer from 2017 Yale to the Trust—in the
same month that Judge Miller ruled that 2017 Yale owed the Steadfast Parties
$8,355,104.89—supports an inference that the Trust was created so that 2017 Yale
could offload the only substantial asset it had to satisfy the judgment against it,
and Fugedi was appointed Trustee to create diversity jurisdiction and avoid
litigating title to the Property in Texas state courts.
As to the fifth and sixth factors—whether the assignor has transferred all
interests and whether the assignee is financing the litigation—the Property is
owned by an irrevocable trust. That would ordinarily be a factor that weighs against
finding collusion. But Fugedi’s actions appear to be undertaken at the direction of
his Texas attorneys and Elberger—after all, Fugedi does not know why the Trust
has not made a payment on a $2,500,000.00 note in nearly five years. Moreover,
Fugedi believes that at least some of the Trust’s attorneys are being paid by Mr.
Kelley. Whether some of the Trust’s attorneys are actually being paid by Mr. Kelley
is irrelevant. The fact that Fugedi does not know how some attorneys are being
paid, and that he believes Mr. Kelley is the one paying them, suggest that Fugedi is
not the one in control.
* * *
For all these reasons I find that the Trust and Fugedi’s appointment as
Trustee were collusively made to create diversity jurisdiction in violation of § 1359.
Thus, I will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 158) for lack of jurisdiction
and dismiss this matter without prejudice. See Ramming v. U.S., 281 F.3d 158, 161
(5th Cir. 2001) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction “is not a determination of the
merits and does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a claim in a court that does
have proper jurisdiction”).
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Having granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, I must address Defendants’
request that I dismiss Fugedi’s claims with prejudice and award attorney’s fees to
Defendants. The Supreme Court has “recognized three exceptions to the ‘American
Rule’ against shifting fees to the losing party.” Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel
Castings Co., 23 F.3d 374, 378 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The relevant exception here is
“when a party has ‘acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive
reasons.’” Id. (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45–46 (1991)).11 The
basis for Defendants’ request is their argument that Fugedi has perpetrated a fraud
upon the court. See Dkt. 158 at 6. Fraud on the court falls within the bad faith
exception. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46. “Fraud” is the “knowing
misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another
to act to his or her detriment.” FRAUD, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009).
Fugedi is dead wrong that § 1359 does not apply here and that the motive
behind his appointment is irrelevant. But that does not mean his arguments to the
contrary were fraudulent or of the type that would warrant sanctions. Every piece
of evidence I have cited in this opinion has either been introduced by Fugedi,
testified to by Fugedi, or referenced by Fugedi. That is not fraud.
Section 1359 exists because Congress expects that parties will attempt to
manipulate jurisdiction.12 If manufacturing jurisdiction were an exception to the
American Rule, one would expect to see a penalty laid out in § 1359. But in all the
cases I have read in which courts have found manufactured jurisdiction, not one
has awarded or even contemplated sanctions, much less dismissal with prejudice.
Remember, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction “is not a determination of the merits
and does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a claim in a court that does have
proper jurisdiction.” Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161. Having determined that this court
lacks jurisdiction, I will not take the extraordinary measure of imposing sanctions.
See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44 (“Because of their very potency, inherent powers
must be exercised with restraint and discretion.”).

11 The first exception is the “common fund exception,” where the litigation benefits others.
The second exception is for willful disobedience of a court order. See Amsted, 23 F.3d at
378. Neither exception applies here.
12 Indeed, Congress has anticipated the manipulation of jurisdiction since at least 1875,
when it enacted the predecessor statute to § 1359. See Farmington Vill. Corp. v. Pillsbury,
114 U.S. 138, 142 (1885).
MOTION FOR RECUSAL
A. LEGAL STANDARD
Fugedi asks me to disqualify myself “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).” Dkt.
256 at 5. That subsection directs a judge to “disqualify himself in any proceeding
in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). As
the Fifth Circuit has explained:
Under § 455(a), “what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice
but its appearance,” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994),
because “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice,” In re
Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). In applying the statute, a court
considers “whether a reasonable and objective person, knowing all of
the facts, would harbor doubts concerning the judge’s impartiality.”
United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 155 (5th Cir. 1995). The
objective standard relies on the “well-informed, thoughtful and
objective observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical, and
suspicious person.” Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir.
2003) (quoting Jordan, 49 F.3d at 156). Justice Kennedy, concurring
in Liteky, wrote that Ҥ 455(a) is triggered by an attitude or state of
mind so resistant to fair and dispassionate inquiry as to cause a party,
the public, or a reviewing court to have reasonable grounds to
question the neutral and objective character of a judge’s rulings or
findings,” such that recusal was required “if it appears that [the judge]
harbors an aversion, hostility or disposition of a kind that a fair-
minded person could not set aside when judging the dispute.” Liteky,
510 U.S. at 557–58 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
United States v. Brocato, 4 F.4th 296, 301–02 (5th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).
“Not all unfavorable disposition towards an individual (or his case) is
properly described by [‘bias or prejudice’].” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 550.
The words connote a favorable or unfavorable disposition or opinion
that is somehow wrongful or inappropriate, either because it is
undeserved, or because it rests upon knowledge that the subject ought
not to possess (for example, a criminal juror who has been biased or
prejudiced by receipt of inadmissible evidence concerning the
defendant’s prior criminal activities), or because it is excessive in
degree (for example, a criminal juror who is so inflamed by properly
admitted evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal activities that he
will vote guilty regardless of the facts).
Id. With these basic considerations in mind, I turn to Fugedi’s arguments for why
I should disqualify myself from this matter.
B. ANALYSIS
Fugedi’s reasons for why I should disqualify myself appear to be (1) his belief
that I or my staff “have engaged in an extensive independent investigation that has
been ex parte”; (2) his claim that I expected him “to brief issues on an unknown
record”; (3) his contention that § 1359 does not apply to trusts and trustees who
purchase real property; (4) my delay in ruling on the pending motions in this
matter; (5) his belief that I have listened to “tapes and/or read the fake ‘transcripts’
Mr. [Christopher] Ramey created”; and (6) my request for a certified copy of
Fugedi’s deposition that was referenced in Defendants’ motions. Dkt. 256 at 3, 7,
12. I will begin by addressing my delay in ruling on the pending motions.
1. Delay in Ruling
I have, admittedly, taken too long to rule on the pending motions in this
matter. The dispositive motions I directed the parties to file following the Fifth
Circuit’s mandate were ripe for ruling in December 2022. I did not set a hearing
until October 2023. This delay was unacceptable. It was not, however, indicative
of bias or prejudice. See Rafferty v. NYNEX Corp., 60 F.3d 844, 848 (D.C. Cir.
1995) (bias could not be inferred from “court delays in ruling on pending
motions”); Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 781 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Neither the
district judge’s [two-year] delay [in ruling], nor his adverse rulings, constitute the
sort of ‘pervasive bias’ that necessitates recusal.”); West v. United States, 994 F.2d
510, 512 (8th Cir. 1993) (“While the delays in ruling . . . were unfortunate, they do
not evidence bias.”). Nor does Fugedi offer any support for the notion that a court’s
general neglect of a case or delay in ruling—something that affects all parties—
could evidence bias or prejudice. Although Fugedi has raised the issue of delay
more than Defendants, Fugedi’s numerous filings do not create bias or prejudice
on my part.
In a letter supplement to his Motion to Disqualify, Fugedi attributes the
delay to me and my staff spending “the last 18-months conducting an ‘independent
investigation’ looking at selective internet gossip.” Dkt. 258 at 11. Yet, Fugedi fails
to identify whatever “internet gossip” he believes I or my staff have seen, or how
my remarks indicate that I have seen it. Conclusory assertions have no more place
in a motion to disqualify than any other motion. See United States v. Alexander,
726 F. App’x 262, 263 (5th Cir. 2018) (affirming district judge’s refusal to recuse
himself where, “[a]side from conclusory assertions that the judge was prejudiced,
[the defendant] did not offer facts suggesting the judge’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned or that the judge had an actual personal extrajudicial
bias against him”).
2. My Analysis of this Court’s Jurisdiction Under § 1359
The rest of Fugedi’s contentions all relate to my jurisdictional analysis, so I
will address them together.
As discussed above, § 1359 applies to the appointment of a trustee. Fugedi
cites no authority for the proposition that a judge’s contrary interpretation of law
evinces bias or prejudice. “‘When an issue or claim is properly before the court, the
court is not limited to the particular legal theories advanced by the parties, but
rather retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction
of governing law.’” U.S. Nat’l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508
U.S. 439, 446 (1993) (quoting Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 99
(1991)). This is especially true where jurisdiction is concerned. “Moreover, in
evaluating subject matter jurisdiction, the court, when necessary, may undertake
an independent investigation to assure itself of its own subject matter jurisdiction,
and consider facts developed in the record beyond the complaint.” CFA Inst. v.
Andre, 74 F. Supp. 3d 462, 465 (D.D.C. 2014) (cleaned up).
As for Fugedi’s suggestion that I have conducted a “secret trial,” I told the
parties on the record during the March 27, 2024 hearing:
[Defendants’ counsel], Mr. Ramey has raised in his motion to
dismiss [Dkt. 158] that . . . the Carb Pura Vida Irrevocable Trust was
collusively created under 28 U.S.C. [§] 1359.
And as I’m sure you are all aware, that statute provides that, “A
district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any
party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively
made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.”
And in looking at that statute, the Fifth Circuit has held that,
“An administratrix’s citizenship will govern the diversity inquiry
unless the administratrix was named with the motive of creating
diversity where it would not otherwise exist.” And that’s the case
Bianca v. Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Division of Warner-Lambert
Company, 723 F.2d [392, 394 (5th Cir. 1984)].
And that same test would apply here where defendants have
raised a factual attack on the creation of the [T]rust and then the
naming of Mr. Fugedi as trustee.
And the relevant considerations the Fifth Circuit has identified
are, and I quote, “The relationship of the representative to the party
represented; the scope of the representative’s powers and duties; any
special capacity or experience which the representative may possess
with respect to the purpose of his appointment; whether there exists
a nondiverse individual who might be more normally expected to
represent the interest at stake; whether those seeking the
appointment of the representative express any particular reasons for
selecting an out-of-state person; and whether, apart from the
appointment of an out-of-state representative, the suit is one wholly
local in nature.”
I have obviously spent a great deal of time reviewing the record,
including the . . . eight exhibits that Mr. Fugedi’s counsel submitted
last night. And initially it seems to me that this trust was created and
Mr. Fugedi was selected as its trustee solely to create diversity
jurisdiction where it would not otherwise exist.
And I say that because Mr. Fugedi’s strongest tie here is to Lloyd
Kelley, a long-time family friend and Texas lawyer, who I note for the
record represented both David Alvarez and 829 Yale in Case 2016-
64847, which was in the 190th Judicial District of Harris County; that
Mr. Fugedi has never been a trustee before; never done business in
Texas before; never managed any real estate before.
From the testimony I just heard, he didn’t know that the note
he executed in favor of the [T]rust is unsecured according to the
various . . . documents that were submitted last night. Mr. Fugedi did
not know what it means for a note to be secured or unsecured.
And more importantly -- most importantly, if I disregard Mr.
Fugedi’s citizenship, I’m left with the LLC whose sole member when
this lawsuit was filed was Elberger, who we have established is a Texas
citizen.
This is, obviously, a dispute about Texas property. All the Texas
lawyers who helped Mr. Fugedi with the administration of the [T]rust
today represented previous owners, Texas citizens, o[f] this Texas
property in litigation in Texas State court.
So that is sort of what I’m thinking, just to lay it all out on the
line; but obviously, my mind remains open. And I want to hear any
argument, any evidence the parties want to present.
Dkt. 251 at 44–47.
During the March 27, 2024 hearing, Fugedi’s counsel asked me what
evidence I had reviewed in analyzing Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. I told the parties that “I have read every single
document in the court file that’s been submitted.” Id. at 77–78. The court’s record
is always the record itself on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See
Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 1980) (“A ‘factual
attack,’ . . . challenges the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact,
irrespective of the pleadings, and matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony
and affidavits, are considered.”). That does not mean, however, that I considered
everything I read in making my decision.
Fugedi’s counsel rightly pointed out that the court’s file “includes documents
that have been attached by Mr. Ramey that have never been introduced into
evidence and they are not admissible.” Dkt. 251 at 78. I responded: “[I]f things are
struck or things aren’t authenticated[, then they would] not [be] considered.” Id.
And I did not consider such things. For example, I have not addressed Fugedi’s
objections13 to “tapes or transcripts of tapes or excerpts of tapes by Chris Wyatt

13 Fugedi had already lodged his objections to the evidence submitted by Defendants in
connection with their motion to dismiss. See Dkt. 176.
(the ‘Wyatt Exhibits’),” Dkt. 176 at 1, because I have not relied on the Wyatt
Exhibits.14 See Gonzales v. AutoZoners, LLC, 860 F. Supp. 2d 333, 337 (S.D. Tex.
2012) (“Many objections raised by Plaintiff’s counsel are immaterial because they
pertain to statements or evidence upon which the Court does not rely for any
rulings.”).
In setting the March 2024 hearing, I told the parties flat out: “After
reviewing the motion to dismiss briefing and the attachments to that briefing—
without even considering the hotly disputed recordings—I am not
satisfied that diversity jurisdiction exists.” Dkt. 240 at 2 (emphasis added). I
“referenced the tapes which Mr. Ramey provided to the Court,” Dkt. 256 at 11,
solely to state that they were irrelevant to my jurisdictional analysis. To wit, we did
not discuss these tapes at the hearing. Thus, I struggle to understand how it could
seem “clear” to anyone that I had “listened to those tapes.” Id. at 12.15
I told the parties everything of which I was taking judicial notice. I told the
parties that I looked at the appellate opinion in 2017 Yale Development, LLC v.
Steadfast Funding, LLC. See Dkt. 251 at 79. I mistakenly identified it as an opinion
from the 14th Court of Appeals—as opposed to the 1st Court of Appeals—but that
is irrelevant because no one raised any objections then or in post-hearing briefing
regarding my reading any appellate opinion. I told the parties that I took “judicial

14 According to Defendants, these tapes demonstrate “that attorney Lloyd Kelley and . . .
Ali Choudhri secretly owned both 2017 Yale and the . . . Carb Pura Vida Trust, and bribed
both Brad Parker and Nicholas Fugedi to pretend to be real parties to handle both sides
of their fake transaction.” Dkt. 158 at 3.
15 Mr. Ramey’s “transcripts” of the tapes are embedded in his briefing, so it was impossible
to not read them. (And yet, it was simultaneously impossible to read them due to Mr.
Ramey’s use of bright, red font and incomprehensible formatting.) I did not, however,
consider any of the assertions contained therein in determining the jurisdictional issues
in this case. See Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50, 69 (2012) (“[J]udges routinely hear
inadmissible evidence that they are presumed to ignore when making decisions.”
(quotation omitted)); United States v. Cardenas, 9 F.3d 1139, 1154 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[A]
trial judge is presumed to rest his verdict on admissible evidence and to disregard the
inadmissible.” (quotation omitted)). The only evidence I have relied on in writing this
opinion is that which is cited as support in this opinion.
notice with the various representation of lawyers involved in this case and the State
court proceeding.” Id. Again, no one raised any objections then or in post-hearing
briefing regarding my taking judicial notice of their representation of other parties
in the State court proceeding.
Prior to the March 2024 hearing, I requested a certified copy of the
deposition transcript referenced in Defendants’ August 25, 2023 letter to the court.
See Dkt. 245. That transcript is from a June 1, 2023 deposition Fugedi gave in 829
Yale Holdings, Inc. v. 2017 Yale Development, LLC, No. 4:22-cv-905 (S.D. Tex.).
Mr. Patterson argued that, as “a deposition from a prior unrelated case,” it was
inappropriate for me to consider the transcript under Rule 32. Dkt. 251 at 59. I
disagreed and overruled the objection. “An adverse party may use for any purpose
the deposition of a party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 32(a)(3). Defendants are adverse to
Fugedi, and Defendants put the transcript in the record. Moreover, the statements
of a party-opponent are never hearsay. See FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2)(A).
Prior to the hearing, I ordered Fugedi to identify the citizenship of the
member(s) of Carb Pura Vida LLC as of August 1, 2019, the date this case was filed.
See Dkt. 244 at 1; see also Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826,
830 (1989) (“The existence of federal jurisdiction ordinarily depends on the facts
as they exist when the complaint is filed.”). I did this because, had the Trust’s
beneficiary also been diverse, it would have seemed much less likely that Fugedi
“was named [Trustee] with the motive of creating diversity where it would not
otherwise exist.” Bianca, 723 F.2d at 394. There is no bias or prejudice in my
requesting on-the-record information relevant to the court’s diversity jurisdiction
that would have made the jurisdictional analysis more efficient.
Three days after Fugedi filed his duplicative motions to disqualify, Mr. Hill
filed a 12-page supplemental letter. See Dkt. 258. Five days later, Mr. Hill filed a
second supplemental letter—this one is 13 pages long. See Dkt. 259. I would be well
within my discretion to disregard these letters, which were filed without leave of
court and do not raise any arguments that could not have been raised by the initial
motions to disqualify. But I will address the arguments made in these letters
anyway.
To start, Mr. Hill complains that I have not fact-checked Mr. Ramey’s
statements regarding cases filed after this lawsuit. See id. at 1–3. But I have not
considered these arguments because statements Mr. Ramey made after this
lawsuit was filed have no effect on the jurisdictional analysis.16 “The existence of
federal jurisdiction ordinarily depends on the facts as they exist when the
complaint is filed.”17 Newman-Green, Inc., 490 U.S. at 830. Moreover, “a party
may neither consent to nor waive federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Simon v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, nothing Mr.
Ramey said before the filing of this lawsuit has any bearing either. My § 1359
jurisdictional analysis is focused solely on the motive behind the Trust’s creation
and Fugedi’s appointment as Trustee. See Bianca, 723 F.2d at 395.
Mr. Hill also complains that I have “morphed” or “re-framed” Mr. Ramey’s
jurisdictional arguments. See Dkt. 258 at 3. It is true that my reasons for finding
that jurisdiction was manufactured in violation of § 1359 are different from the
reasons Mr. Ramey advanced. But I am not beholden to Mr. Ramey’s arguments. I

16 In any event, Mr. Ramey’s invocation of diversity jurisdiction when naming Fugedi (as
Trustee) as a party in other federal court lawsuits is not per se improper. As I have stated
before—and as Fugedi’s counsel are keen to point out—Fugedi is a valid trustee. See Dkt.
240 at 1. Fugedi holds a valid deed to the Property. See Fugedi, 2022 WL 3716198, at *3.
But that is irrelevant under § 1359. See Kramer, 394 U.S. at 829 (“[A]n assignment could
be improperly or collusively made even though binding under state law.” (quotation
omitted)); O’Brien, 425 F.2d at 1034 (“Accordingly, the legality of a relationship for state
law purposes does not control its effect on federal jurisdiction.”). Again, all that matters
is motive, and it is Fugedi’s burden to prove facts establishing jurisdiction. See
Williamson, 645 F.2d at 413. He has not carried that burden. That does not mean the deed
to the Property is invalid. It simply means federal courts will not permit Fugedi to invoke
diversity jurisdiction when that is the only reason the Trust was created, Fugedi was
appointed its Trustee, and the Property titled in his name.
17 That the relevant point in time for determining jurisdiction is the date the complaint
was filed does not preclude me from considering post-filing testimony to aid in resolving
disputed facts concerning the motive behind creating the Trust and appointing Fugedi as
Trustee. See Williamson, 645 F.2d at 414 (“[A] judge may be required to hear oral
testimony where the facts are complicated and testimony would be helpful.”).
have “a continuing obligation to assure [my]self of [this court’s] jurisdiction, sua
sponte if necessary.” Green Valley Special Util. Dist. v. City of Schertz, 969 F.3d
460, 468 (5th Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted). Moreover, “‘[w]hen an issue or claim
is properly before the court, the court is not limited to the particular legal theories
advanced by the parties, but rather retains the independent power to identify and
apply the proper construction of governing law.’” U.S. Nat’l Bank of Or., 508 U.S.
at 446 (quoting Kamen, 500 U.S. at 99).
Defendants raised the issue of collusive diversity jurisdiction on October 21,
2022. See Dkt. 158 at 19 (citing § 1359).18 The parties had a full and fair opportunity
to brief that motion, which has been ripe for ruling for well over a year. During the
March 27, 2024 hearing, I told the parties exactly what law and which facts seemed
relevant to me. See Dkt. 251 at 44–47. At no point did Fugedi’s counsel ask to call
other witnesses or to continue the hearing so that other evidence could be
presented. Moreover, the parties were free to “make any arguments” without page
limits following that hearing. Id. at 95. Fugedi’s counsel suggested the deadline for
such briefing. See id. It is thus preposterous for Fugedi to suggest that he was
deprived of the opportunity to file a meaningful brief.
As noted earlier, my decision is based entirely on evidence that Fugedi put
into the record. For example, I know that Mr. Hill represented Parker in a state
court proceeding concerning the Property because Mr. Hill supplied the final
judgment from the case in question. See Dkt. 16 at 9. It appears Fugedi’s “gripe” is
that I actually looked at the cases his counsel directed me to; for that, his counsel
“have only themselves to blame.” Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C., 955
F.3d 453, 464 (5th Cir. 2020). “Facts learned by a judge in his or her judicial
capacity regarding the parties before the court . . . cannot be the basis for

18 In fact, Defendants pled “collusive assignment to create diversity in violation of 28
U.S.C. 1359” in their original answer on October 17, 2019. Dkt. 8 at 13. Defendants’
original answer was superseded by the time the parties consented to me, so I had no
reason to review it until my new law clerk—who decided to review the docket from start
to finish in an attempt to understand the facts of the case—pointed it out to me.
disqualification.” United States v. Reagan, 725 F.3d 471, 491 (5th Cir. 2013)
(cleaned up). Because Fugedi points to no “extrajudicial knowledge” that I possess
regarding this case, he “bears the burden of showing that [I] displayed a deep-
seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”
Tejero, 955 F.3d at 464 (cleaned up). He has not carried this burden.
For these reasons, Fugedi’s Motions to Disqualify (Dkts. 256, 257) are
DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, I find the creation of the Trust and Fugedi’s
appointment as Trustee were collusive devices to manufacture diversity
jurisdiction where it would not otherwise exist in violation of § 1359. Accordingly,
I GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 158) for lack of jurisdiction. I
decline, however, to impose sanctions.
This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A final judgment
will issue separately.
SIGNED this 17th day of April 2024.

______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10677595. Public record. Not legal advice.