OPINION AND ORDER Libra Max (“Ms. Max” or “Plaintiff”) has sued Barbara H. Urbach Lissner (“Lissner”)1 for intentional and/or reckless infliction of emotional distress, violation of New York’s laws prohibiting strategic lawsuits against public participation (“anti-SLAPP”), and for violation of New York Judiciary Law §487. See Compl. 1, Dkt. 7. Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. See generally Def. Mot., Dkt. 13. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. BACKGROUND2 Public scrutiny over state guardianship systems has increased in recent years with good reason. Reports of abuse and exploitation by court-appointed guardians loom large, particularly on the heels of the so-called “#FreeBritney” movement.3 But concerns of abuse are diminished when there is a strong justification for the guardianship arrangement, such as in cases where, as here, the ward suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia exacts a significant toll on the families involved; the cost is compounded when the ward’s family members are at odds with each other. The Court acknowledges at the outset of this decision the unfortunate reality that, despite the presumably shared goal of ensuring Peter Max gets the best care possible in his final years, his caretakers and his children are unable to resolve their disagreements collegially, out of the public sphere and without court intervention. Plaintiff Libra Max, a California citizen with a residence in Manhattan, is the daughter of famed artist Peter Max (“Max” or “Mr. Max”). Compl. 56. Max, who has Alzheimer’s, has had a court-appointed personal needs guardian since 2015. Id. 38.4 After his second wife’s death and the departure of several court-appointed guardians, on June 10, 2019, Lissner, an attorney and citizen of New Jersey, was appointed as Mr. Max’s personal needs guardian. Id.
57, 63. Plaintiff alleges that Lissner “should never have been assigned as Peter’s guardian.” Id. 14. In Plaintiff’s view, her father’s need for a personal needs guardian ended with the death of his wife, after which he “should have been afforded his clearly stated wishes to be cared for by his children at the end of his life…and to have his children make medical decisions for him to the extent he is unable.” Compl.
