UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ERIKA L. VAN CROFT,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 22-3383 (JMC)

v.

PATRICK C. HORRELL, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is Defendants Patrick C. Horrell and Fahrenholz & Horrell L.L.P.’s

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Erika Van Croft’s (AKA Erika Laws 1) lawsuit. Plaintiff is upset about

the outcome of a D.C. Superior Court probate proceeding, In Re William A. Van Croft IV, No. 2009

INT 000226 (“Sup. Ct. Case”)—a matter to which she is not a party and over which this Court has

no jurisdiction to intervene. For these reasons and others explained below, the Court grants

Defendants’ Motion. 2

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania. She filed this suit against Mr. Horrell, a District of

Columbia attorney, and his law firm, Fahrenholz & Horrell L.L.P. ECF 1 at 1–2. According to

court documents submitted by both Plaintiff and Defendants, Mr. Horrell serves as court-appointed

guardian and conservator for William Van Croft IV. ECF 14-2 at 3 (citing Sup. Ct. Case Ord. dated

1 Defendants have submitted court records identifying Plaintiff’s name as Erika Laws. See ECF 14-2 at 3. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, the formatting of citations has been modified throughout this opinion, for example, by omitting internal quotation marks, emphases, citations, and alterations and by altering capitalization. All pincites to documents filed on the docket in this case are to the automatically generated ECF Page ID number that appears at the top of each page.

1 7/18/19 at 4); ECF 28-2 at 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint refers to Mr. Van Croft as her “son,” ECF 1 at

6; court records submitted by Defendants confirm that he is not, see, e.g., ECF 14-2 at 3 (describing

Plaintiff as “the former girlfriend of Mr. Van Croft’s deceased father”).

Plaintiff’s suit arises from her profound disagreement with decisions rendered in the long-

running probate matter that resulted in Mr. Horrell’s appointment. She brings four claims. 3 First,

she alleges that Mr. Horrell committed fraud by illegally intercepting Mr. Van Croft’s social

security survivor’s benefits. ECF 1 at 6–8. Second, she claims that Mr. Horrell engaged in “willful

and wanton misconduct” by committing other unlawful acts to gain access to Mr. Van Croft’s

benefits, including by presenting what Plaintiff contends was a fraudulent court order to the Social

Security Administration. Id. at 8. Third, she contends that Mr. Horrell’s actions constitute

intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 8–9. Finally, she claims that Mr. Horrell defamed

her by making unspecified sworn statements (presumably to a court) in August 2021 and other

statements to the Social Security Administration in June 2022. Id. at 9. For these purported

violations, Plaintiff seeks $1,000,000.00 in monetary damages, among other relief. ECF 1 at 4, 9–

10.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ECF 14 at 1. To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(1),

the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating subject-matter jurisdiction. Arpaio v. Obama,

(D.C. Cir. 2015). Relevant here, a defect in “standing is a defect in subject matter

3 Plaintiff’s Opposition references other claims not identified in her Complaint, but none of them are viable. She invokes

(d)(2), see ECF 28 at 1–2, but that statute governs “[r]eporting on cyber incidents with respect to networks and information systems of operationally critical contractors and certain other contractors[,]”10 U.S.C. §§ 391(d)(2), and is inapplicable to any allegation she makes here. Her Opposition also references the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), see ECF 28 at 2, but that statute authorizes suits against the United States for the tortious conduct of federal employees,

(b)(1), which Defendants are not.

2 jurisdiction.” Haase v. Sessions,

(D.C. Cir. 1987). In resolving the motion, a

court must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and “construe the complaint

liberally, granting plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged

and upon such facts determine jurisdictional questions.” Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. FDIC,

(D.C. Cir. 2011). However, a court need not “accept inferences unsupported by the

facts or legal conclusions that are cast as factual allegations.” Schmidt v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd.,

(D.D.C. 2011). Further, a court may consider materials outside the pleadings

to determine its jurisdiction. See Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,

(D.C. Cir.

2005).

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). In ruling on such a motion, a court is limited to considering the facts

alleged in the complaint, any documents attached to or incorporated in the complaint, matters of

which a court may take judicial notice, and matters of public record. See EEOC v. St. Francis

Xavier Parochial Sch.,

(D.C. Cir. 1997). And a court “may take judicial notice

of another court’s proceedings.” Donelson v. Bureau of Prisons,

(D.D.C.

2015), aff’d, No. 15–5136,

(D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 2015).

III. ANALYSIS

A. This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s Claims Related to Mr. Van Croft’s SSA Benefits

This Court has no jurisdiction to review the probate court’s judicial orders, and Plaintiff

has no standing to challenge Mr. Horrell’s management of Mr. Van Croft’s survivor benefits.

Records from the Superior Court probate proceeding confirm that Mr. Horrell is a court-appointed

fiduciary, serving on behalf of Mr. Van Croft as a guardian and conservator. See ECF 14-2 at 21

3 (citing Sup. Ct. Case Ord., dated 12/13/18; Sup. Ct. Case Ord., dated 7/18/19);

at 8 (citing Sup.

Ct. Ord., dated 7/18/19). As such, he is obligated to manage Mr. Van Croft’s financial affairs,

including his SSA benefits,

(citing Ct. Case. Ord., dated 7/18/19), which are deposited and held

in a Special Needs Trust,

at 21 (citing Sup. Ct. Case Ord., dated 9/11/17; Sup. Ct. Case Ord.,

dated 1/18/18). Plaintiff has already filed many unsuccessful challenges to the arrangement of Mr.

Van Croft’s conservatorship, including by attempting to litigate the allegations she raises in this

case. See, e.g.,

, 20–22. The D.C. Superior Court has resolved these matters, see

and

this Court has no jurisdiction to review or interfere with those orders, see Richardson v. Dist. of

Columbia Ct. of App.,

(D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing D.C. v. Feldman,

(1983)). Almost all of Plaintiff’s claims are “significantly intertwined,” with Mr. Van Croft’s

probate matter in Superior Court, Kennedy-Jarvis v. Wells,

(D.D.C.

2015), and this Court cannot, and will not, second guess the determination of a Superior Court

judge that Mr. Horrell is an appropriate conservator with authority to manage Mr. Van Croft’s

finances, see Lewis v. Parker,

, 194 n.2 (D.D.C. 2014) (federal courts do not have

jurisdiction over claims which attempt to “administer an estate, probate a will, or do any other

purely probate matter”) (quoting Marshall v. Marshall,

(2006)).

Plaintiff does not have standing to bring claims relating to Mr. Van Croft’s benefits, in any

event. A plaintiff must assert her own legal rights and interests in a lawsuit. Plaintiff cannot claim

damages for injuries she claims to have suffered because of the alleged mishandling of someone

else’s finances. She argues that she has the authority to bring this suit on Mr. Van Croft’s behalf

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1)(C). ECF 28-1 at 12; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

17(a)(1) (describing the kinds of people, including guardians and executors, who may sue on

behalf of another without joining the person for whose benefit the action is brought). Not so.

4 Plaintiff is not Mr. Van Croft’s legal guardian, she has not established that she has any other legal

authority to act for him, and a court has already appointed Mr. Horrell to act on Mr. Van Croft’s

behalf. See ECF 14-2 at 8 (citing Sup. Ct. Ord., dated 7/18/19). Plaintiff is not the proper party to

bring claims related to Mr. Van Croft’s benefits and this is not the forum to raise them.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims related to fraud, including for what she describes as “willful and

wanton misconduct,” and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) are dismissed pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(1).

B. Plaintiff has Failed to State a Claim

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim—with respect to the

claims identified above and Plaintiff’s remaining claim for defamation.

First, even if her Complaint could overcome the jurisdictional hurdles the Court has already

outlined, she has stated no claim for fraud. To satisfy the heightened pleading standard for fraud,

a plaintiff must “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

This pleading requirement includes matters such as the “time, place and content of the false

misrepresentations, the fact misrepresented, and what was retained or given up as a consequence

of the fraud.” United States ex rel. Williams v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co.,

(D.C. Cir. 2004). Here, Plaintiff sets forth, at best, boilerplate allegations contending that Mr.

Horrell presented “a falsified court order” and provided “perjurious statements” to the SSA, the

Superior Court, and other federal officials. ECF 1 at 8. Again, Plaintiff has no standing, and the

Court has no authority, to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims that essentially challenge the Superior

Court’s appointment of Mr. Horrell’s appointment as Mr. Van Croft’s conservator. But these

allegations also fail to meet the heighted pleading standard because they do not provide the

5 required specificity, including the content of the purportedly false representations. Thus, Plaintiff’s

fraud and other “wanton misconduct” claims for allegedly fraudulent behavior are dismissed.

Second, Plaintiff’s IIED claim also falls short. To state a claim for IIED, a plaintiff must

allege “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant which (2) intentionally or

recklessly (3) causes the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.” Ortberg v. Goldman Sachs

Grp.,

(D.C. 2013). The Complaint includes only bare recitations of the applicable

legal standards and does not allege that Defendants engaged in the type of conduct, or that Plaintiff

suffered the type of injury, that would allow her claim to proceed.

Finally, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for defamation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

“knowingly and purposely defamed and slandered [her]” with “written statements” “in August

2021” and “to the SSA on June 27, 2022.” ECF 1 at 9. But her Complaint does not allege what

those statements were or even that the unspecified statements were false. The Court gathers that

Plaintiff is upset that Mr. Horrell has held himself out as Mr. Van Croft’s court-appointed guardian,

but that is, in fact, Mr. Horrell’s title. See ECF 14-2 at 8 (citing Sup. Ct. Ord., dated 7/18/19);

at 21 (citing Sup. Ct. Case Ord., dated 12/13/18; Sup. Ct. Case Ord., dated 7/18/19). Nor is that

the type of statement that would damage Plaintiff’s reputation or otherwise constitute defamation.

Further, D.C. law provides a one-year limitations period for defamation claims. See

(a)(4); Maupin v. Haylock,

, 1041–42 (D.C. 2007). So, Plaintiff’s claim

concerning statements allegedly made in August 2021 could not go forward even if she could state

a claim.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is

GRANTED. A separate Order will be issued contemporaneously.

6 SO ORDERED.

DATE: October 17, 2023

Jia M. Cobb U.S. District Court Judge

7