Reported / Citable
Background
After William Michael Redondo died, Lauren LaFoy opened an intestate-administration proceeding in Montgomery County probate court. The decedent’s sister, Michelle Ann Belmont, later applied to probate a purported will. His son, Wesley Wade Redondo, contested the will on grounds including lack of testamentary capacity, forgery, and fraud.
Redondo subsequently amended his contest to challenge Securian Life Insurance Company’s payment of the decedent’s life-insurance benefits to Belmont. Securian maintained that the policy was part of an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan and removed the entire probate case to federal court. Redondo moved to remand, arguing that removal was untimely and that the probate exception foreclosed federal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan recommended granting the remand motion in part. She concluded that Securian removed the case on time because its 30-day removal period began when it was formally served on November 20, 2025—not when its counsel received an emailed copy of the amended pleading six days earlier. The December 19 notice of removal was therefore timely.
The magistrate judge also concluded that the probate exception did not bar federal jurisdiction over Redondo’s ERISA claims. The disputed insurance proceeds were characterized as non-probate assets held by Belmont, rather than property in the state court’s custody. The recommendation would sever the ERISA claims against Securian, retain them in federal court, and remand the remaining will-contest and probate claims to Montgomery County Probate Court No. 1.
Key Takeaways
- A newly added defendant’s removal period began upon formal service, not counsel’s earlier receipt of the pleading by email.
- The probate exception did not reach claims concerning non-probate insurance proceeds outside the state probate court’s custody.
- The magistrate judge recommended separating the federal ERISA claims from the probate dispute and remanding only the latter.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates how a single state-court filing can contain both removable federal claims and probate matters beyond a federal court’s authority. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c), the proposed result preserves federal adjudication of the ERISA dispute while returning the will contest and estate administration issues to probate court.
It also applies the formal-service rule to removal timing: advance notice of a claim does not necessarily start the statutory clock before the recipient has been formally made a defendant.