Belmont v. Redondo et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
IN THE ESTATE OF
WILLIAM MICHAEL
REDONDO, DECEASED
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-06168
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This action arises from the estate of Decedent William
Michael Redondo. It began in the Montgomery County
Probate Court, where an application was filed representing
that Decedent had died intestate with one son, Wesley
Wade Redondo. Dkt 1-2 at 11. Michelle Ann Belmont,
Decedent’s sister, then filed an application to probate will,
along with a copy of what she represents to be Decedent’s
valid will. Dkt 1-3 at 6–9. Redondo filed a will contest and
objection to that application. Dkt 1-4 at 1–6.
Redondo later learned that Securian Life Insurance
Company paid out Decedent’s life insurance benefits to
Belmont. He filed a second amended will contest and
objection to application to probate will on November 14,
2025, adding a claim against Securian for payment of the
life insurance benefits. Dkt 1-43 at 6–16.
Securian was served on November 20, 2025, and filed
a notice of removal for the entire probate matter on
December 19, 2025. Dkt 1. The notice of removal asserts
that subject-matter jurisdiction is proper in federal court
because the disputed life insurance benefits were part of an
ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan. Id at 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06168 Document 17 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 14.
Pending is a motion by Wesley Wade Redondo to
remand. Dkt 16. It asserts two grounds for remand, being
(i) removal was untimely, and (ii) the “probate exception”
precludes exercise of federal jurisdiction over the entire
action. Id at 3–8.
Judge Bryan recommends that the motion to remand
be granted in part. Dkt 16. She finds that removal was
timely because Securian removed the action within 30 days
of service. Id at 5–6. As to the probate exception, she
concludes that it doesn’t entirely bar exercise of federal
jurisdiction over this matter, although it does apply to the
probate proceedings themselves. Id at 6–7. She thus
recommends severing the ERISA claims against Securian
from the probate case and remanding the remaining
probate claims to the probate court. Id at 7.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
None of the parties filed objections. No clear error
otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the
applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 16.
The motion to remand by Wesley Wade Redondo is
GRANTED IN PART. Dkt 6.
Case 4:25-cv-06168 Document 17 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
All claims by Wesley Wade Redondo against Securian
Life Insurance Company are SEVERED from Probate Case
No 24-47273-P. Such claims will remain in federal court.
All remaining claims in Wesley Wade Redondo’s
Second Amended Will Contest and Objection to Application
to Probate Will are REMANDED to Probate Court No 1,
Montgomery County, Texas, under Probate Case No 24-
47273-P.
The Clerk is ORDERED to provide a copy of this Order to
the Clerk of the Probate Court No 1, Montgomery County,
Texas.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
July 30, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-06168 Document 17 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3